Conservation Commission / IWWA Minutes 03/18/2014 DRAFT
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/INLAND WETLANDS &
WATERCOURSES AGENCY MINUTES
MARCH 18, 2014
REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chairman, Donald Rieger, called the Regular Meeting of the Conservation Commission to order at 7:50 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room at the Town Offices. Other members and alternates in attendance were Patrick Kottas, Margaret Sexton, Jim Morrison, and Bertram Kaplan. Also present were Howard Beach, Conservation Officer, Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk, and other interested parties.
II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
Chairman Rieger appointed Commissioner Kottas to serve for Margery Winters and Commissioner Morrison to serve for Darren Cunningham.
III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
IV. PUBLIC HEARING(s)
a. Application #14-02 of Thomas Evans, Owner, for the development of the parcel into a mixed-use development to include retail uses, offices, and gasoline sales in the Upland Review Area to a wetland on the property located at 155 Hopmeadow Street (Map F17, Block 201, Lot 002A). Zone I-1. (continued from March 4, 2014)
Application #14-02 was read into the record and was continued from the March 4, 2014 meeting.
Commissioner Kaplan made a motion to reopen the public hearing. Commissioner Kottas seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
The Chairman reviewed the meeting format with the Applicant first presenting any additional information and interaction by the Commissioners, then Commissioners would pose questions, and followed by the discussion being opened to the public.
The Applicant's representative, Attorney Marinelli, summarized their plan to respond to five questions raised at the last meeting, including: use of pervious pavers on a portion of the site; the groundwater level; O&M plans and spec sheets; calculations regarding runoff volumes; and operation protocols for the underground storage tanks with redundancies and cautionary measures. A package of material was provided to the Commissioners, including: Guy Hesketh, engineer's report dated 3/17/14 with spec sheets for the storm scepter; a memo from Cumberland Farms dated 3/14/14 regarding technical and environmental information for USTs; and a memo regarding underground storage tank emergency response program protocols.
The Applicant's engineer, Guy Hesketh, addressed the first four questions comprehensively in the submitted 3/17/14 memo and proceeded to highlight pertinent information for the Commission. Regarding use of pervious pavers, the engineer explained they are not recommended for gas stations; however, they are recommended for use in retail office settings and light traffic areas; they put the pavers here because it is a mixed-use site with parking for a light traffic commercial area. A map showed the gas station separated by a couple of watersheds dividing the fueling operation. The rationale method was used by the Applicant's engineer to calculate rainfall runoff with 90% of rainfall landing on an impervious area flowing off site and for pervious pavers about 30% would run off site with 70% infiltrated; calculations indicated that not installing the pavers on this site would not increase site runoff. The depth to groundwater in the pervious paver area was about 6-8 feet below the proposed grade with the highest elevation at 179.4 and the lowest elevation at 177.6 at the catch basin; groundwater elevation in February at one of the monitored wells was 171.5. The engineer showed the hydrodynamic separator locations with one in a watershed and another in the northern portion of the site. They proposed using a Renker Materials STC Model 450 at one location Renker's STC-900 at the second location; detailed specs were provided with the 3/17/14 memo, but in general; the 450 has a storage capacity of 470 gallons and would capture 86 gallons of hydrocarbons while the 900 has a storage capacity of 952 gallons and would capture 251 gallons of hydrocarbons.
Questions regarding post construction storm water management and site maintenance were described in detail in the 3/17/14 memo, and the engineer summarized paved areas would be swept quarterly (typically April/May, summer, late fall, and in winter depending on weather) to prevent pollutants from going into the storm drain system. Catch basin locations were shown and described as a concrete box with sump and a pipe elevated 2 feet to allow sediments to be trapped in the catch basin; the catch basins would be inspected quarterly and cleaned every spring and/or any time the deposition was seen to be a foot or more from the catch basin bottom. The hydrodynamic separators would also be inspected quarterly and cleaned every spring and/or any time sediment reaches 8 inches from the bottom, as recommended by the manufacturer. The velocity dissipators at the end of each storm water outfall would have rip rap erosion protection; one at the pipe coming in from the State highway, another at the combined outlet for their two basins along Hopmeadow Street, and at the pipe outlets at the water quality basin; they would be inspected each spring/fall for sediment deposition, erosion, or scour-type of event and after each major storm or flash flood. The water quality basin would also be inspected quarterly and after each major storm or flash flood. Regarding drainage analysis, the engineer calculated whether in addition to having a decrease in the peak rate of runoff, if there would be a volumetric increase and found that about 80-90% of the storms/year could be either a two-year storm or be less than two-year storms; a two-year storm would have about a 50% chance/year of occurring. For a two-year storm under existing conditions, the engineer indicated currently there was a 2.4 cfs peak rate leaving the site; with the proposed 6-inch orifice allowing water to leave the water quality basin that would decrease to 0.7 cfs. The volume currently at 1361 cu. ft. of runoff for a two-year storm would decrease to 1233 under this proposal because the outlet of the water quality basin is set at elevation 174 providing modest storage capacity at the onset of a storm between elevation 173 at the bottom of the basin and elevation 174. For a ten-year storm which would have a 10% chance/year of occurring, the peak decreases from 3.3 to 1.1 under this proposal and volume modestly increases from 1824 to 2100 cu. ft. under this proposal. Given that the majority of storms would result in a decrease in volume and more intense storms would only have a modest net increase, it was the engineer's opinion that this development would not be significant or detrimental to area waterways.
In response to Commission questions, the engineer responded that cleaning and inspections would be done by a third party and records kept onsite. Regarding reports being filed with regulators, the engineer said typically it is a condition of approval from a town wetlands commission; there is no reporting to DEEP. For a commercial site, there is a record-keeping requirement but not a reporting requirement. The total site area was confirmed at 1.87 acres or 81,530 sq. ft. The separators used were confirmed to be designed for gas stations would treat both suspended solids and floating pollutants, e.g. hydrocarbons; the engineer believed the Renker units to be one of the best and described their operation for separating solids. Quarterly inspection of the separators would typically be done visually with any product present siphoned, removed, and transported offsite; the water could be decanted and disposed of in a sanitary sewer, although typically it is taken to a treatment plant; a record binder would be kept on site and available for Town Staff inspection. One separator would have a small surface grate, but not the other. A standard Connecticut DOT catch basin would be utilized near the building with concrete form and grate on top. Regarding litter blocking catch basins, that would be taken care of as part of daily housekeeping. Similar to the rest of the site, if pervious pavers were replaced in the plan with impervious surface, the Applicant's engineer reconfirmed that storm water volume would be fine, and water quality would still meet the required DEEP guideline for 80% removal of TSS. The Applicant had offered pavers as an LID component and they would have infiltrated a very small amount of water, but if impervious surface is a condition of approval, water would continue to go into the water quality basin for treatment with no impact on the ditch.
The Applicants underground storage tank engineer, Frank Monteiro, P.E., provided an overview of the Cumberland Farms system and emergency preparedness response plan. The gas station system consists of an overhead canopy with 4 dispensers on a concrete mat which can fuel 8 vehicles at one time; two underground tanks would be located on the left edge of the canopy and each would hold 20,000 gallons. A schematic tank plan was provided with major components, including: proposed double walled fiberglass tanks which would not corrode in contact with hydrocarbons or soil and is a 50-year old technology; the primary tank would store the fuel and the outer tank would act as secondary containment; brine fluid which is in the interstitial space between the two tank walls should remain static, but if there is a primary tank leak, the brine enters the primary tank and an electronic probe measuring the interstitial brine level at all times set off an alarm in the store; and secondarily, a leak in the outer wall lowering the brine level would trigger an alarm, and if a high water table above the tank the sensor would be raised and trigger an alarm. Regarding piping between tanks and dispensers, Cumberland Farms proposed using a double walled fiberglass pipe with a two-inch fiberglass pipe within a three-inch fiberglass pipe with interstitial space between the walls; piping from each dispenser slopes down to each tank at 1/8 inch per foot so a leak in the primary line feeding the dispensers would be captured in the interstitial space by the secondary pipe and would flow back due to gravity into the submersible sump riser and an electronic probe in the sump would sense the presence of any liquid and be connected to the electronic console in the store. The submersible pump in the tank pressurizes the line up to the dispenser and if it senses any decrease in pressure, it will not operate. Regarding water tables and tanks potentially floating, the systems are designed assuming a worst-case scenario with water at grade; they would use concrete deaden on each side of the tank with fiberglass anchor straps designed to hold the tank down in fully submerged conditions with no issues for placement in high water tables or flood plains. Regarding potential dispenser leaks, today's technology provides a water tight fiberglass under dispenser containment sump and Cumberland Farms goes farther and bonds the piping connections to the sump, but if there is any leak from the dispenser, it comes into the containment sump which is designed to hold 100 gallons of fuel and sensors monitor any fuel coming into the sump. When tanks are filled by delivery trucks, the trucks park adjacent to the tank field and connect both a 4-inch hose to the fill pipe and a secondary hose for vapors so as fuel drops into the tank by gravity, the vapors go back into the truck through the secondary hose and are brought back to the terminal. Safety features for the hose connection to the ground are very important and 5-gallon spill containment buckets with double walls and interstitial space would provide additional safety redundancy which Cumberland Farms chooses to install. Any hose drippings would be contained in the spill containment bucket as well and not drip onto the ground surface. Safety features for the filling process include: before deliveries occur an electronic tank monitor relays back to the electronic console exactly how much fuel is in the tank and only the amount of gas needed to fill the tanks is delivered; the tanks cannot be filled beyond 95% capacity with a flapper valve shutting off flow to the tank and sounding an alarm. Within the 2-tank field, there are two monitoring wells on either side; the 10-foot diameter wells go about 15 feet deep and would allow ground water to be sampled; they would use four wells if desired by the Commission. If a loss of inventory is determined, the first thing they would do is sample those wells which have become a standard. Although anchored to the concrete, if a vehicle hit a dispenser dislodging it, there is a crash valve under each product line and valve would close preventing leakage; also there are steel ballers to prevent vehicles from hitting tanks. There are breakaway connections at the top of the hose that close if someone drives off with the nozzle in the car; the dispenser holds about 5 gallons of gas which would go into the containment sump. Other features of the fuel dispensing area include: the spill containment grooves in the concrete around each of the four islands with each set containing about 10 gallons of fuel and are designed to pick up any minor spills; an automatic fire suppression system would be installed with a white powder to extinguish any fire. Spill cleanup from the grooves would be picked up with absorbent materials by employees and disposed of offsite to prevent it getting into the storm water system. Regarding inventory reconciliation, the automatic tankage system manufactured by Vitaroot has a console in the store that constantly sends electronic pulses to all the sensors, and if any sensor is not working properly, an alarm is triggered with printouts for every probe, and it shows how much fuel there is in each tank. The accuracy of the probes provides for statistical monitoring for .1 gallons/hour; beyond the probes, any inventory discrepancy compared to sales would be constantly monitored and if it exceeds half of total volume or 200 gallons/day the State requires it be reported as a leak.
Cumberland Farms representative, Rob Schuler, explained that the monitoring system would be connected to their corporate office to track inventory; protocols in place provide for immediately dispatching someone to the site. The various companies they contract with must have someone onsite within 30 minutes. He did not know how often someone is called. The Commissioners asked if 200 gallons/day are reported to the State as a spill, what is the minimum loss where someone would come out to check on it. The representative indicated it would not be for as small as a one-gallon loss, but it is not a 200-gallon amount. The system is constantly monitored throughout the day, and if idle a period of time would go through the entire monitoring process; if someone starts pumping fuel, it stops and begins the process again when the pump is done.
The Applicant's engineer felt that with these state-of-the-art simultaneously operating systems, there would not be a safer gas station in Simsbury. Regarding the UST, the tank system would be installed by certified contractors who also certify to DEEP installation in accordance with the plan and State Specifications as certified through a State registration form; the State also requires annual tightness testing; and the DEEP inspects the UST system every three years. Regarding tertiary protection, Cumberland Farms for further safety concerns would be agreeable to a further step of installing an impervious liner underneath the two tanks; the liner would be manufactured by MPC Containment and have welded seams so it is water tight; the observation wells would be inside the liner for visual inspection and sampling. Regarding tertiary containment around the lines, they felt when the lines are pressurized any potential leaks come back through secondary containment, but if there is no calling of product, there is no fuel to be monitored; and to keep project economics realistic, Cumberland Farms felt it was unnecessary. To detect a leak in the outer tubing, a pressure test is done on the lines, and any water infiltrating the pipes would run back to the sump. Every time the driver makes a delivery, they do a tank stick test; separate precision tests are done on the interstitial space, and two different pressures are used to test the outer and inner pipes. There are no known catastrophic failures for the Container Solutions tanks and they are warrantied for 30 years. The applicant indicated there should not be any loss of pressure in the piping; the pressure measurements are handled by a certified third party and would meet State requirements. Regarding the delay in the line when pumping gas, if there is any loss detected in primary line pressure, it will not operate. Line redundancies include dispenser probes, tank sub-probe, piping sloping back to the tank, and more expensive fiberglass piping.
Rob Schuler indicated Cumberland Farms provides consistent training for all employees, including store workers and delivery drivers. Federal rules require training and at a minimum, their workers must be trained to level C in order to effectively oversee the checklist for each store; regional managers insure documents are up-to-date, employees go through refresher courses and understand changes in regulations and procedural enhancements. An outline of their emergency response program was provided to the Commissioners. Additionally, any contractors they work with are also required to undergo training. Because Cumberland operates its own trucks and has direct control over their training, including a comprehensive handbook which covers loading/unloading procedures, how to deal with spills, DOT regulations, safe driving, and more with regular testing; a copy of the checklist was provided to the Commissioners. Mr. Schuler confirmed in the worst-case scenario if remediation is necessary, Cumberland accepts responsibility for cleanup and is self-insured. Their attorney noted through the gross receipts tax goes to the State fund, which currently is underfunded. He repeated that everyone who works in a Cumberland store has to be at least a level C trained. The State cutoff for tank life is currently 30 years, with a potential extension possible.
Public comment was invited and the Commission's jurisdiction was limited to wetlands and watercourses with questions civilly addressed through the Chair.
John Lucker of 88 Blue Ridge Drive provided a written copy of his comments, which have been added to the application file. As he listened to the presentations, he Googled fuel leaks for Cumberland Farms with many articles found about gas leaks, tank leaks, and car accidents, and cars that backed up into gas tanks, and encouraged people to read about that. He felt it was important to validate the opinions of experts to be considered fact; a major leak from a gas station, in particular for diesel which is much more potent to the environment than gas itself, which is a volatile compound. He summarized his bullet points as follows: the minutes for the last meeting indicated there were no wetlands on the site; however, he felt it is the Commission's purview to be concerned with surrounding wetlands, and the site flows into Minister Brook which flows into the Farmington River. He noted that across the road there are wetlands where Dunkin Donuts is located, and Mr. Evans, who owns that property, has had to fuss with equipment trying to control the wetlands on this wet property. He commented that the shallow water table stated at the last meeting was 5-7 feet and was changed to 6-7 feet at this meeting, but it would be important to consider how water flows into those wetlands. They heard the storage tanks would control spillage and control separation of product compounds that leak into the surface area and ultimately flow in a rainstorm. He talked about a foot acre which is the amount of water on acre of land and felt with about six storms/year that each provide a 1/2 inch of rain, that a 1/2 inch of rain on an acre of land is 13,500 gallons of water and would exceed their storage tank capacity, flood the area, and flow into Minister Brook. He read his quote that, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." He did not buy into the containment engineering and questioned the dead man anchor system to control these large tanks; 20,000 gallons of air would have considerable buoyancy; his EPA reading indicated it was not typical to have these tanks submerged in water because safety features were minimized with groundwater in direct contact with the tank, and if outer piping leaks, it would leak into the water table. He encouraged the Commission to conduct research and engage an independent party to risk assessment. He commented that Cumberland being self-insured was a good thing because the Town could take Cumberland to the bank, if necessary. He indicated the pool barn was formerly a tobacco barn and suggested the Commission consider before disrupting the soil, that soil testing be done to determine if remediation is needed. He also questioned that as water spills into the conduit along the bike path, which he understood to be State property, whether the Commission would have purview over that water flowing into the wetlands. Regarding the aquifer and water table so close to the surface with that surface water taking time to infiltrate, that there would be continuity between surface and nearby well water, and with the tank submerged in that surface water, he questioned whether there would be pollution penetrating through a continuous flow to the underlying water table. He also mentioned a conversation with Town Staff where he learned the water under Stop and Shop is no longer considered an aquifer by the State because it was contaminated by the nearby Arco gas station, and does not want that to happen at this site; there are already several brownfield in Town and another one is not needed.
Isabelle Danielson of 2 Hamilton Lane related her experience of driving off with a gas hose attached and resulting in a large spill. She reported it to the gas station attendant who provided her with a kit for cleanup. While she cleaned it up as best she could, the attendant just looked and went back to what he was doing without providing any further effort. She felt this nice site could be used for many things, but not a gas station which would be at the expense of health, families, water, and bike path. She recently created a petition to learn if Simsbury residents wanted this gas station and received 175 signatures of people strongly opposed and respectfully asked the Commission to vote no for this Application.
Ellen Gilbert of 126 Hopmeadow Street, Talcott Acres Condo Association, expressed concern for the safety of drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians on Hopmeadow Street and that Dunkin Donuts increased traffic has already made it more dangerous. The addition of a 24-hour gas station will add to safety concerns with patrons wanting quick entry/exit to the area. The Chairman requested people to comment more specifically on wetland issues.
Alan Needham of 2 Basswood Lane stated he is on the Planning Commission but was not speaking in that capacity. He summarized regarding the Town's character that gas stations are undesirable neighbors and people would not buy homes to be next to a gas station. He felt the only way to be absolutely safe would be to not build it in the first place; this would be 40,000 gallons of volatile hydrocarbons floating in water that would be too close to homes, water and wetlands. He noted the damage caused by MTBE, which has been replaced by ethanol which could potentially soften joints; safety equipment exists because mistakes happen, but it takes a few years to figure it out. There continue to be gas station accidents and parts wear out; he asked at what point are parts replaced - automatically or when something fails putting gas/diesel in the ditch and wetlands. At the last meeting he read a list of major spill incidents at gas station that he Googled and sources which he felt were dismissed as anecdotal; he also listed other documents. His list of spills has been added to the application file. He introduced Kim Clarke.
Kimberly Clarke of Eolas Environmental represented the members of the community. She cited recent incidents of surface spills, including: 6/14/2013 in Detroit where in a criminal act hundreds of gallons spilled on the pavement and into the sewer at a gas station when one man confronted a fuel tank driver; 2/14/2014 in Akron when a car drove away and more than 200 gallons spilled at a gas station before firemen arrived to turn the pump off; and 9/11/2013 in New Jersey as the result of a safety valve malfunction, 800 gallons of fuel oil spilled. She felt it should be acknowledged that systems fail. Regarding the spill containment grooves, she provided an example of grooves during the winter that permanently fill up with ice, sand and debris, thereby negating that system. She performs gas station audits, and the Vitaroot system, with gas being constantly pumped, does not provide the quick reaction represented here and in some cases takes months. She indicated the DEEP has mapped this site and classified groundwater in the area as GA which means it is suitable for drinking; the map shows the radius around Hamilton Lane encompasses the proposed site. She requested that the community would also like to better understand the distribution volume anticipated for the gas station's two 20,000 gallon capacity tanks, what is the distribution volume, how often are tanker trucks entering/exiting the site - the more tanks are serviced, the greater the risk for systems to fail, for overfills, and for saddle tanks on trucks to breach. Lastly, they would like management to present information on the historic property uses which could trigger necessary State DEEP investigations; if investigation were necessary, remediation of soil and management of groundwater would take on a different look and it is important to determine that. Regarding the efficacy of the proposed hydrodynamic separators, she indicated if there was a significant surface release, the capacity of these units would not be adequate. The probability of systems failing was discussed and Ms. Clarke, who has 20 years’ experience on petroleum sites, just spent four months in New York state at four sites with modern systems remediating several thousand tons of soil. She said the probability is very high; while this proposal uses the very latest technology it has limitations; her experience is that over time the training, maintenance, and cleaning the grooves all taper off. She added the mechanical systems have limitations, but human error contributes to conditions at the site and potential for release. She said the problem is usually at the transfer lines, and while they proposed a tertiary system for the tanks, they did not offer it for the lines and the high probability of failure is at the junction and through the lines, especially for this tank's construction. The testing described by the Applicant is a State requirement, but the system could fail subsequent to a tightness test which is done annually with 364 days until the next test. She has seen other petroleum companies with old and new equipment monitor the gain/loss of hundreds of gallons for several months; in Syracuse there recently was a release of 3000 gallons of fuel when someone annoyed by an alarm disabled it and it never moved up the chain of command.
John Danielson of 2 Hamilton Lane asked if there was a guarantee that Cumberland Farms would be the only owner. The Commissioners clarified the State requires certified operators to run the site and inspects records every three years with annual reporting requirements. He expressed concern about the welfare of his children and family living in the area during those three years.
Todd Picken of 4 Hamilton Lane commented on potential causes of leaks; he recently built a garage at another location and due to the cold weather the surface of the garage center heaved five inches pushing his walls out. This site is so wet and if the frost affects the pipes as the joints flex, he would like to know how they deal with heaving and related issues.
Stacy Knisel of 6 Hamilton Lane indicated her house is on a slab 500 feet from the proposed site and has wetlands in her backyard; everyone who has basements has sump pumps. Her lot has greater acreage than this proposed site and she believes water from this site will be coming into her backyard.
Claudia Sarkowski of 5 Quad Hill Road, who is a member of the Simsbury Humanity Task Force but was not there representing them, commented the DEEP website cites an article that the 100-year storm frequency will be more like one in 56 years with climate change and she would like to hear more about the Applicant's climate change strategies.
Mr. Lucker read from a Colorado state source that, "There are 680,000 underground storage tanks in the United States with a backlog of 130,000 cleanups; 9,000 new leaks are discovered annually. Chemicals in the underground storage tanks can quickly move through soil and pollute the groundwater where one gallon of petroleum can contaminate one million gallons of water. One pin prick size hole in an underground tank can leak 400 gallons of a fuel a year."
Mr. Needham remembered filling a five-gallon tank, activating the trigger lock and it overflowed. He since learned the trigger locks are legal in Connecticut, but not Massachusetts; that is another avenue for gasoline to enter the wetlands.
Attorney Marinelli requested a five-minute recess.
Chairman Rieger reopened the hearing.
Judy Rabinowitz of 126 Hopmeadow Street asked if there are two tanks, how is the diesel managed? Also, with pump on a slab and the roadbed surface and there is a 5 gallon containment unit under the unit for spillage or a drive away, how does spillage get through the roadbed and into the container. The Applicant responded there are two tanks which each have two compartments; two 12,000-gallon compartments would be regular unleaded and one 8,000-gallon compartment would be super unleaded and the 2nd 8,000-gallon compartment would be diesel; mid-grade fuel is blended at the dispenser. The containment box could hold 100 gallons, the 5-gallon amount could be contained directly below the dispenser.
Regarding heaving, the Applicant explained that stainless steel flexible connectors would be on each product line under the dispenser and at each submersible pump at the tank; the tanks are 14 feet below grade with dog legs incorporated as recommended by the manufacturer allowing the piping to flex in the ground; the pipes are backfilled with pea stone material which is less susceptible to frost. Regarding ethanol softening joints, the Applicant indicated over time the fiberglass piping is compatible with ethanol and stands up to the product.
Regarding the DEEP circled area on their maps, the Applicants engineer responded that the 500-foot radius is an arbitrary circle and the distance between Latimer Well #1 and the nearest property corner is 600 feet and his measurements do not put this circle on the 155 Hopmeadow property. Also, the area of contribution to a water well in this type of location is from the bedrock and not from the overburden materials above bedrock and most of the capture zone of that well field would be in the upstream direction and not form a circle as is arbitrarily drawn by DEEP on these maps; site specific data in the engineer's report confirms this conclusion. They did not agree with the suggestion there would not be enough storage onsite to handle a fuel spill and in their presentations provided hundreds of examples; however, if this Commission is concerned there is a path for a spill to leave the site, approval could be conditioned on installing two 900 storage units provided 500 gallons of storage. The Applicant noted a number of comments were not relevant to the Commission's area of jurisdiction and they would not be responding to them.
The Applicant's attorney summarized they would accept as a condition of approval removal of pervious pavers, the most advanced multiple detection systems would be used as described; all employees at all times on the site would be at least a class C operator and higher trained people would oversee protocols to assure they are followed; and there would be no adverse impact from the proposed activities to the wetlands and watercourses with precautions taken that would improve existing conditions with slowing of velocities from Hopmeadow Street and installation of rip rap in the back of the site where they observed scour under existing conditions. They respectfully asked their information be considered and that the Commission vote to approve the Application. The Commission and Town Staff were thanked for their assistance.
Regarding location of wetlands, the Applicant's engineer confirmed there are no wetlands on the property, and recalled there are no wetlands within 50 feet of the property line; a bowl shaped area recessed about 10 feet lower in elevation is located to the north of the property line which has a chain-link fence and could potentially be wetlands and was estimated to be about 70 feet to the north. Town Staff confirmed that is private property and wetlands on the site were delineated.
The Applicant's engineer explained the rationale method regarding 100-year storms is typically used by DOT and other State agencies for analysis of watersheds under 100 acres; numbers used are for certain number of inches per hour varying by the type of storm; they end up with the same relative comparison between existing and proposed with no net increase. The most common storm is still the two-year storm with no increase in volume or peak runoff rates.
Regarding soil management at the site, the engineer indicated the proposed elevation would be higher and any excavated fill from tank placements would be used in construction; there would be a net import of material on the site. Soil would be tested as required by law.
Regarding the heaving question, the Commissioners responded no conclusions have been reached at this point.
Ms. Clarke restated the request to highlight historic site conditions, how they would be assessed and managed; during construction there is concern about pesticide use, and service station activities. They wanted to have on record that the community is concerned about how contaminated soils would be assessed in advance of construction activities and managed during construction. The Applicant stated that would be managed in accordance with applicable law. The Commissioners noted these concerns and suggested historic uses could be looked into.
Mr. Pickens talked about former railway system in the area and the potential for diesel having been disposed of in this area and need to look into prior property uses.
The Chairman advised attendees no decision would be made this evening and following the next presentation, the Commissioners would likely return to a discussion of this Application.
Commissioner Sexton made a motion to close the Public Hearing. Commissioner Morrison seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
V. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION
a. Application #14-03 of Jamie Herrick, Applicant; Peter Murphy, Owner; to install an in ground swimming pool and fence within the Upland Review Area to a wetland on the property located at 33 Blue Ridge Drive (Map E19, Block 618, Lot 104). Zone R-40.
The Application was read into the record.
The Applicant's contractor reviewed the plan would be to install a 22x36 foot in ground pool at the rear of the property. A topographical map was provided showing the location of wetlands about 22 feet from the proposed pool. A new silt fence and hay bales would be put in to stabilize the existing hill and allow time for vegetation to grow. They would use either a mineral or chlorine system and use a thicker 28 mm liner; they backfill with Title 5 sand and regrow grass with at least 4 inches of top soil. Access to the pool would be on the side off the road to the west of the building; a backhoe would be brought in.
At season end, the water would be pumped down going away from the wetlands onto the front lawn. They are familiar with and follow wetland requirements. Their warranty remains in effect if they maintain the pools they install, so 80-90% of their customers stay with them. They work quickly in a one-week process with one crew digging, one building, one doing the liner, one doing the hard bottom, one backfilling, and one doing final grading. As soon as the fence is installed, the top soil is spread; excavated material not needed on site would be brought to their shop in Vernon; most likely soil would be stockpiled east of the pool. The Commissioners suggested extending the silt fence into that area for nearby wetland protection and the Applicant's contractor agreed to wrap the silt fence around any stockpile. The area enclosed by the fence would not all be concreted; it would probably be about 3 feet of cement, but that would not be decided until the pool is in and they could do decorative stone or plantings.
Regarding chemical storage, the contractor recommends it be enclosed in dark spaces at the pump and filter, but not much would be stored onsite with maintenance done by the contractor. The contractor uses a DE filter which is not back washable; crushed fill shells are also used.
The drop off is drastic near the fence and the fence could be removed with silt fence put in all the way around the grass edge on the flat area. The contractor would put two stakes in each hay bale to secure it; the silt fence is dug six inches into the ground and faces the correct way to remain on the stakes. They anticipated no activity in the wetland. The fence would have eight-foot footings cemented in posts in five-gallon buckets. The contractor indicated they have an A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau and the take many extra steps to do things right and satisfy homeowners which is why they put in 120 pools/year. Town Staff reviewed that drawing water down from the pool to the front yard is preferred, and typically, chlorination is stopped several weeks in advance of drawing the pool down.
Commissioner Sexton made a motion that this is a regulated activity because it is within the Upland Review Area. Commissioner Kottas seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Sexton made a motion that it is not a significant impact activity because there will not be any activity within the wetlands itself and no changes to or diminishing of the wetlands are anticipated as a result of this pool installation. Commissioner Kottas seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Sexton made a motion to approve the Application contingent upon the controls that were discussed, such as: the silt fence, no activity in the wetland, restabilizing the soil, pumping out the pool away from the wetlands as a routine maintenance issue, and any comments and suggestions from Town Staff during the actual activity. The motion was amended to include a scratch pad so material is not tracked into the road with power sweepers used. Commissioner Kaplan seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
V. RECEIPT OF NEW APPLICATIONS
Town Staff received a request for a minor modification to the wetlands permit from the Veterans Memorial which will be heard at the next meeting.
The Commissioners resumed discussion of Application #14-02. They discussed further consideration of what was formerly on the site, potential impact on the soil, and whether any pesticides have ever showed up in well water. Rather than taking only a wetlands viewpoint, a gas station may not be desirable from a conservation point of view. Should consideration be given to the Commission's charter regarding Town build out. Concern was expressed about the Commission's purview and whether soils are included. Also discussed was whether the public was aware of this Commission's and other commission's jurisdictions and whether there is a gap in jurisdiction related to water wells. Town Staff reviewed that each Commission has a separate purview and does not try to influence any other commission; consultation between commissions does not take place.
It was summarized that the Supreme Court made clear there needs to be an impact on a wetland for the Commission to deny a permit; it is clear a significant probability of an impact from the project must be found on the record and needs to be decided at the next meeting. Another issue is that Commission regulations say a permit may not be given if a public hearing is held to consider a serious question, unless the Applicant satisfies the Commission that there is no feasible and prudent alternative; however, the Applicant's position was that is not the law and their position is backed by case law on that issue. The Applicant has acted to improve the project, including with tertiary containment, and the Commission cannot require any further reasonable and prudent inquiry and cannot deny a permit merely because that has not been done. The narrow question left for the Commission to assess is whether what is proposed on the record would create a significant probability at least of an impact on wetlands and watercourses.
The permit approval could have reasonable conditions within the Commission's purview, e.g. removing the permeable pavers. Tertiary containment around the dispenser lines could also be a reasonable condition, although that could be assailable by the Applicant. If the impact to the aquifer would probably have an effect on the watercourse, that could be an issue. Town Staff noted that how aquifer is defined is important because ground water near the surface would more likely intermingle with a wetland as opposed to in an aquifer in bedrock. Whether the hydrogeologist’s discussion of the shallow aquifer provides a link on record of any firm indication the aquifer has a direct link to the wetland waterway was discussed.
The Commission's Bylaws provide that a draft decision can be developed with Town Staff in about a week and then reviewed and commented on by members before the April 1st meeting; this would allow everything to be addressed, including potential conditions. Town Staff is always available for discussion with Commissioners.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE/ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of March 4, 2014
On Line 40, after the word "does", insert "have"; replace "with associated regulated activities" with ", resulting in"; after the word "activities" insert "being regulated", so that it reads "the site, it does have an intermittent watercourse resulting in activities' being regulated."
On Line 42, replace the word "an" with "a".
On Line 44, insert at the beginning of the sentence the words "The Applicant presented the proposed project as follows:"
On Line 46, following the word "Trail", insert "(the Trail)"; delete the words "which has been converted to Rails-To-Trails".
On Line 48, change the word "Wheel" to "well"; change the word "House" to lower case "house".
On Line 51, delete the words "their site"; after the word "toward", insert "wetlands to".
On Line 54, replace the words "to their" with "along the".
On Lines 57-58, delete the words "which puts them in the Upland Review area."
On Line 62, delete the word "from".
On Line 63, delete the word "Rail".
On Line 64, add the word "Street" after "Hopmeadow".
On Line 93, change the number "7" to "11".
On Line 122, delete the word "have".
On Line 163, after the word "The", insert "Applicant's"; change "hydro-geologist" to "hydrogeologist".
On Line 164, following the word "supply.", insert "He recommended as follows:", change the word "hydro-geologic" to "hydrogeologic".
On Line 225, delete the words "reiterated their obligation" and replace with "asserted that their Regulations require them".
On Line 234, following the word "The", insert "Applicant's".
On Line 244, following the word "but", insert the words "stated that".
On Line 252, following the word "scientist", insert the words "commented as follows: He".
On Line 282, the word "further" is changed to "farther".
On Lines 282 to 283, delete the sentence "The Applicant felt with the planned siting of the tanks and water flow direction and the wetlands further north, an additional layer of protection for the aquifer is provided."
On Line 286, the word "with" is changed to "and".
On Line 296, following the word "Lane", insert ", commented as follows: He".
On Line 298, following the word "higher", insert "than the Applicant suggested".
On Lines 303 to 304, put parentheses around the sentence "(Regarding dispensing diesel, the Applicant confirmed that is likely.)"
On Line 321, the words "Wetlands Commission" are changed to lower case "wetlands commission".
On Line 324, the words "Wetlands Commission's" are changed to lower case "wetlands commissions".
On Line 342, following the word "work", insert "commented as follows: He".
On Line 381, delete the word "The", and insert in its place "He said that the".
On Line 410, following the word "She", insert "said she".
On Line 418, delete the word "Rail".
On Line 422, delete the word "Rail".
Commissioner Kaplan made a motion to approve the March 4, 2014 minutes, as amended. Commissioner
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Sexton made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:10 p.m. Commissioner Kottas seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
_____________________________
Donald Rieger, Secretary