WPCA Minutes 6/11/2020
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 11, 2020
“Subject to Vote of Approval”
1. CALL TO ORDER
Paul Gilmore called the regular meeting of the Water Pollution Control Authority to order at 7:33 p.m. via a virtual Zoom meeting. The following members were present: Tom Hickey, Jay Sheehan, Michael Park, Jacques Brignac, and Lucian Dragulski. Also present were Tony Piazza, Superintendent, Thomas Roy, Director of Public Works and Alison Sturgeon, Clerk.
2. SAFETY BRIEF – Mr. Gilmore gave a safety brief noting during this pandemic, social distancing is extremely important in staying healthy.
3. DISCUSSION: FCC POLICY REGARDING CONDOMINIUMS AND TOWNHOUSES
Mr. Sheehan stated that the revision to the FCC policy was set in 2013; he also reviewed the Land Use Regulations for this discussion. He stated that when the FCC was set in 2013, a townhouse was defined as 10 units per acre site in terms of land use; single family was defined as up to 6 units per acre site. Condominiums were not defined in the Land Use Regulations. In terms of water usage, the only guidance is from the Connecticut Department of Public Health. He stated that there is a public health code that talks about residential buildings, which states that design flows for residential buildings are based on the number of bedrooms. The State does not distinguish between condominiums and townhomes; it is all under the heading of residential. Mr. Sheehan stated that he has done some research on what other states do and found a myriad of differences.
Mr. Piazza stated that he looked back at the meeting minutes from the FCC Subcommittee as well as the approval of the FCC policy at the WPCA meeting. At the Subcommittee’s final meeting on August 31, 2012, they made a recommendation to the WPCA, the policy as it is today with the prorated FCC for apartments and condominiums. The minutes also state that a townhome would be treated as a single family dwelling. Mr. Piazza stated that the minutes of the WPCA state that there was discussion regarding what is considered a condo, apartment and townhome and it was recommended that definitions be placed on each of those. He stated that the only definitions that were put into the policy were for condominiums and apartments.
In summary, Mr. Gilmore stated that the Subcommittee considered a townhome to be the same type of dwelling as a single family home. He stated that this shows that there was fair consideration of how a townhome should be treated at a time when they were considering providing a reduced charge for condominiums based upon number of bedrooms and square footage. Based on the research done by Mr. Sheehan and Mr. Piazza, he does not feel that the policy should be changed at this time.
Regarding the minutes from the FCC Subcommittee’s last meeting, Mr. Roy stated that this was a deliberate decision and that, reading from those minutes, “The term condominium was discussed. Mr. DiFata, Powder Forest Homes, stated that there are townhomes structured as condominiums, where an association owns the outside of the buildings. The definition of condominium needs to be very clear. Mr. Gilmore stated that his intent in using the term condominium is that it is a dwelling unit contained within a building of other dwelling units; it is not a freestanding structure or a PUD”.
Mr. Sheehan stated that he does not believe there has been any data presented that the policy should be changed at this time. Mr. Hickey agreed. Mr. Dragulski feels that the policy should treat everything the same, since a townhome would use the same amount of water as a condominium. There was a short discussion regarding water usage.
Mr. Gilmore questioned if the Authority members wanted to study this issue further, which they did not. There was consensus among the members that the policy should remain the same for the time being.
4. STATUS REPORT ON SEWER EXTENSION PROJECTS, ETC.
Mr. Roy stated that the Woodland Street project continues to be in the design phase. Mr. Piazza stated that the survey should be completed within the next day or so. Also, the Town is looking at purchasing the Meadowood property as open space.
5. TREATMENT FACILITY REPORT
Mr. Piazza stated that all permit requirements were met for the month of May. He stated that staff has started the replacement of Programmable Logic Controllers (PLC). Staff is coordinating with the computer integrator from Tighe & Bond for installation. Work is on hold due to travel. Staff is also continuing work with AECOM for the update of the Water Pollution Control Plan, the Water Pollution Control Facilities Plan, Analysis of the protective berm with the updated flood plain mapping, and an update on the phosphorous removal plan. AECOM engineers visited the site to perform an overall assessment for potential system upgrades.
Mr. Piazza stated that Granite Inliner has completed the first year of work for the project. Initial cleaning and video inspection started and the lining installation began the week of May 11, 2020 and was completed on June 2, 2020. A total of 12,711 linear feet of pipe was rehabilitated at a cost of $508,440. A video inspection of the Tunxis force main was also completed as part of this work in anticipation of lining the force main next year. He stated that the plant water system has been delivered and the final parts will be delivered this week. Installation will be scheduled when staffing allows.
6. CORRESPONDENCE
The members of the Authority reviewed a letter from Mr. Piazza to Tom Daly of Milone & MacBroom regarding the facility connection charge for the McLean retirement community building.
7. MAY MEETING MINUTES – POSSIBLE APPROVAL
Mr. Sheehan made a motion to approve the May 14, 2020 minutes as written. Mr. Brignac seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
Mr. Sheehan made a motion to amend the agenda to include a discussion regarding industrial general permits. Mr. Hickey seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
Mr. Sheehan stated that a public hearing will soon be set for industrial general permits. The WPCA has an opportunity to write a letter regarding their comments and concerns, although this would need to be done soon. The State DEP used to handle all of the industrial wastewater permits for towns. He stated that all the industry in Town need to have an industrial discharge permit. That process has always been between the business owner and the State, although the State was never very good in including the local towns. Because of this, Simsbury does not have a record of all of the industrial users in Town; most towns do not as well. The State now wants all municipalities to take this over. There will be some additional costs to the Town in terms of looking at, issuing and monitoring these permits.
Mr. Piazza stated that the State is looking for towns to take industrial permitting over in October. It will put the onus on towns, who have no recourse for 6 months to come up with any type of fee structure because votes/approvals on fee structures are voted on in May by the WPCA. A public hearing would need to be held at a special meeting in order to incorporate a new fee schedule.
Mr. Sheehan stated that the WPCA has the following options: a letter could be written on behalf of this Authority; they could file for intervener status; or they could be present at all of the hearings. He recommended that he and Mr. Piazza go to all of these meetings to represent Simsbury. He also volunteered to draft a letter to be read into the record at the public hearing requesting clear records of all businesses in Town that are industrial users as well as ample time to adjust their fee structures.
Mr. Piazza stated that Avon and Granby will need to give Simsbury their information of industrial users in those towns as well. He stated that although Simsbury will not be able to collect fees from those users, they will be responsible for the enforcement of those permits. Mr. Roy stated that, with the industrial waste, if there was a high BOD content or another non-uniform waste stream, Simsbury will still be responsible to review it. Avon and Granby’s responsibility would only be to convey the flow.
8. ADJOURN
Mr. Sheehan made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Hickey seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
_________________________
Paul Gilmore, Chairman