Docstoc

THE INLAND WETLANDS COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF AVON HELD A REGULAR

Document Sample
THE INLAND WETLANDS COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF AVON HELD A REGULAR Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                                  IWC 03/03/09
                                                                                    Page 4018

THE INLAND WETLANDS COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF AVON HELD A REGULAR
MEETING ON TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 2009 AT THE AVON TOWN HALL.

Present were Cliff Thier, Chairman, Michael Beauchamp, Vice-Chairman, Dean Applefield,
John Logan, Jed Usich, Martha Dean and Diane Carney. Also present was John McCahill,
Planning and Community Development Specialist.

Chairman Thier called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.

NEW APPLICATION

APPL. #698 - The Avon Water Company, applicant/owner. Requests: 1) installation of 10”
ductile iron water main to replace existing water main, crossing watercourse and within two
wetlands; 2) installation of 10” ductile iron water main within 100’ regulated area of
wetland/watercourses. Location: 488 West Avon Road, Parcel 4520488.

Mr. David Whitney, Professional Engineer of Avon was present representing the Avon
Water Company who is the owner/applicant for this application. Also present was John
Christian from the Avon Water Company and Ian Cole, Soil Scientist who flagged the
wetlands for the project.

Mr. Whitney said he prepared the site plan that was submitted with the application. The
site is 3.3 acres, directly behind the fire station on West Avon Road and directly to the north
of Avon High School on the east side of the road. Pump station #3 and a well for the Avon
Water Company have been located there for several years with an existing water line which
runs out towards West Avon Road. Chidsey Brook runs through the property, and there is
an existing gravel access drive that comes in from West Avon Road through the parking lot
of the fire station. The gated entrance goes back to the pump station and a gravel road
goes around the site. There is an existing foundation for a future expansion of the pump
station and a gravel parking lot around the pump station.

The purpose of the application is for the construction of a new water line approximately
500’ in length from the existing pump station #3 to the water main near West Avon Road.
This project is part of the water company’s ongoing upgrading of their water system. The
existing water pipe is old and the company is replacing older pipes in town.

In this application, the first activity is crossing 20’ through a shallow depression of wetlands
soils, which consists of about 275 sq.ft., for a temporary disturbance. The construction will
be approximately 8’ to 10’ wide to allow the back hoe to dig the ditch, install the pipe,
backfill the trench, and then reseed. It’s a temporary disturbance of the wetlands. The
second activity is going across about 30’ of wetlands including Chidsey Brook for wetlands
disturbance of about 335 sq.ft. It will be just south of the existing 48” culvert that’s
underneath the access road. The desire is to stay away from the existing culvert.

He has included a sequence of construction and erosion control measures for the project.
The whole project should take about a weeks’ time, each of the wetlands crossings will take
                                                                                 IWC 03/03/09
                                                                                   Page 4019

about a day or less. They received a memo from John McCahill dated January 22 nd
requesting additional information on the plans; such as flood lines, limits of clearing, the
location of existing utility poles, a note about seeding the wetlands area after construction,
and show significant trees on the site. He stated that they revised and resubmitted the
plans with the revision date of January 27th.

Mr. John Christian, Avon Water Company said when they were developing the plan for
relocating this water main, one of the alternatives they looked at was to go down the area
of the gravel driveway and try to stay out of the wetlands. They need to maintain access to
this facility, it’s where they store all their pipes, fittings, and clamps so if there’s ever a
water main break, that’s where they have to get the supplies. It’s a single road in and out,
there is no secondary access. The water main replacement is part of the States WICA
program which is the Water Infrastructure and Conservation Adjustment program. The way
it’s set up is they do the project and then they are able to pass that cost along to the
customers to recoup their expenses. By going an alternate route it will increase the cost
considerably. A reinforced 8” pipe can become compromised if they had to change the
location with a lot of structural support, they’d have to go under the existing 48” culvert as
there is not enough material above the pipe to have the water main go above it. The actual
gravel drive would also have to be completely dug up and replaced which would be an
additional cost. Material would also have to be trucked to a different portion of the site,
there are power lines and it would be tough to put it there and some material could end up
in the wetlands. They have not gone out to bid; they are waiting until they find out where
the pipes are going to get an accurate price. They will then submit a report to the
Department of Public Utilities Control DPUC which is in charge of the WICA program. They
haven’t gotten their final cost, but replacing the gravel drive could cost about 25 thousand,
it could be less that that. The only area affected will be the ones mentioned with a depth of
5’.

Mr. Christian continued. The reason for the project is this is an older material, smaller
diameter main. It’s an 8” main, the pressure on the main typically exceeds what it was
designed for which we believe has led to some of the breaks in the past that they’ve had to
repair. When that main was put in originally, that station pumped 300 gallons per minute.
We now use a capacity of 550 gallons per minute. The quantity also increases the
pressure. Since that time we have extended the main so that this well is being used more
often. The recommended new material is stronger, and it has a longer active life. With the
larger diameter it will decrease the pressures exerted on that pipe which will extend its
serviceability. They will be pumping the same amount of water; it will be going through a
larger pipe so it’ll reduce the pressure. The way they operate that well station will not
change. They plan to replace the 8” pipe with a 10” pipe. There have been at least three
breaks in that area. He indicated that he had been out to a break several years ago, but
the break was not in the wetlands. He does not know about the others.

Mr. McCahill commented regarding the memo from Mr. Baril. His memo suggests that they
come in south of the existing culvert and then run a straight line toward the pump house.
Coming in south of the existing culvert is so they won’t have to disturb it and at that point
                                                                                  IWC 03/03/09
                                                                                    Page 4020

make a bend to the north to get it back in line and run parallel to the existing driveway or in
the existing driveway. His concern is that we don’t know the history of that pipe and if we
 could avoid going under that pipe, we should. The 8” line that is there will stay in place
and will be somewhat usable. They are adding the additional capacity of the 10” pipe.

Mr. Christian said they currently have a diversion permit with an 8 ½ year life-span
remaining on it for use of the well. The DEP is requiring that they try to reduce withdrawals
from a portion of their system. They will be able to continue use of the wells at the Fisher
Meadow. At the end of that diversion permit, they are required to reduce their pumping
capacity at this well; down to 300 gallons per minute from 550 that are used now. At that
point nothing larger than a 10” would be required. They plan to keep the 8” pipe in service
while they are installing the 10” main and then they will disconnect the 8” main. The
existing 8” main on West Avon Road will also be expanded to 12” as part of the long term
improvement program. If the 8” pipe should break in the future they would have to invade
the wetlands area. The well was installed in 1957 so the pipe has been in service for 52
years. The pump house has reached its capacity.

Mr. Whitney said these wetlands do not have a huge number of functions. Chidsey Brook
is a watercourse. This finger of wetlands is too small to serve a number of functions. The
disturbance would be temporary and of a very short duration and the value of the wetlands
is limited and the disturbed area will be restored. Whatever functions exist right now will
not be changed after construction.

Ian Cole said the important fact here is that it’s a temporary disturbance of less that 600
sq.ft. The longevity of disturbance will be less than a week. The characteristics of the
wetlands will remain unchanged. The controls are in place with site inspectors there
monitoring all the construction activities; there will be no adverse impacts. They plan to
perform these activities during the dry season.

Mr. Christian commented that it is difficult to give an exact date for construction until they
receive approval from the state, determine contractor availability, and go through the
bidding process. They would definitely avoid the higher flow periods and do the work
during the lower flow.

Mr. Whitney said there are details on the maps but essentially they will establish two
cofferdams with a pipe to channel the water. Trenches will be dug on one side of the pipe,
the machine will go around and then it will dig up the other side. Basically they are setting
up two temporary cofferdams with a bypass pipe.

Mr. McCahill stated all of his comments have been addressed. He wants to clarify that
there is an additional regulated activity which is involved with removing, repairing, replacing
the existing parking lot which is just north of the fire house. Some portion of that pavement
will have to be disturbed. Mr. Whitney pointed to it on the map. He said the parking lot is
actually on Avon Water Company land but the fire department uses it.
                                                                                 IWC 03/03/09
                                                                                   Page 4021

Mr. Beauchamp made a motion that Application #698 be approved with standard conditions
from the Town of Avon and any additional conditions laid out by John McCahill in a letter
dated January 21st and January 22nd 2009. Mr. McCahill said that the comments don’t
result in any additional conditions. He added the need to include the third item as a
regulated activity for the pavement removal, repair and replacement. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Jed Usich. The vote was unanimous.

OUTSTANDING APPLICATION

APPL. #697 – Mr. Frank T. Sidoti Jr., applicant/owner. Requests within 100’ regulated
area: 1) construction of a proposed single-family residential house, driveway, utilities, septic
system, underdrains, and related site grading and filling: Location: 43 Vermillion Drive;
Parcel 4420043.

Present were Mr. David Whitney Professional Engineer representing Mr. Frank T. Sidoti, Jr.
owner/applicant of this property known as lot 47 or parcel number 4420043, 43 Vermillion
Drive and Henry Moeller, Soil Scientist who delineated the wetlands and prepared a report
about the wetlands.

Mr. Whitney said that, at this Commissions request, he sent out letters to three adjacent
property owners on Pheasant Run and a property owner on Breezy Knoll. When starting
this project they had tried to tie into the sewer which exists on Breezy Knoll and Pheasant
Run. He also indicated that they were unsuccessful in getting the town to allow a low
pressure sewer force main for this lot and they were unsuccessful in getting any easements
from adjacent property owners. He had contacted these people last year and again this
year by using a certificate of mailing to prove he sent the letters out. He gave copies to
John McCahill. Mr. Whitney stated that he has not been contacted by any of the four
adjacent property owners. At this point they are going forward with the septic system. He
submitted a copy of the letter from Tom Daukas, Avon Town’s Engineer dated January 29,
2008. The plan being presented is a culmination of several months work with the Town.
The Town does not believe it is feasible, at this time, to tie into the sewer line. This cannot
happen until such time the Town sewer is expanded.

Mr. Whitney was asked to calculate the quantity of fill involved within the 100’ upland
review area. They are coming in with a driveway, there’s some filling below the driveway
and filling on the northern part of the site to create a yard. There’s some fill on the site
now. There was a permit granted by this commission in 1995 to allow fill on this site. The
filling started, then stopped. The quantity of fill will be 3200 cubic yards. It does include a
20% factor for compaction. There will be fill involved with the septic system. They also
added more detail to the construction phase provided on sheet 5. He showed plans of the
construction done in each phase. The plan gives the contractor an idea of what the Town
expects. The first phase includes clearing the trees, establishing the limits of disturbance,
installing the silt fence and the hay bales, installing the anti tracking pad, then creating an
access path to the septic system. The first portion of the septic system is built, fine graded,
then seeded and vegetated, the second portion of the system is constructed, then final
grading in the north portion of the site, then another area final graded and seeded, the
                                                                                 IWC 03/03/09
                                                                                   Page 4022

second portion of septic system is finished, final graded, then seeded. After this the
construction of the house begins and final stabilization of the site is completed. This shows
an orderly construction of the site so the entire site is not disturbed and torn up at one time.
Whoever works on this property will know they can’t go in and make a mess of this
property. It has to be done in an orderly manner.

Mr. Henry Moeller, Soil Scientist said he prepared a report to summarize his previous
reports. These wetlands soils are not waterbodies. They have a large amount of organic
matter; they have soil bacteria, fungus, various types of nutrients, and they support
vegetation. In contrast, a waterbody can be subject to degradation from an overload of
nutrients, sedimentation or pollution. The organic matter and soil particles both in the
upland soils and the septic system leach field have organic matter, soil particles, soil
bacteria, and vegetation that basically absorb most of the nutrients that will come from the
effluent from the septic tank. This is a residential septic system, most systems are over
designed for the actual usage for a normal household. This was designed for a four
bedroom home, for 600 gallons per day. Normal usage, while you may hit 600 gallons in
one day due to a party or whatever, generally ranges from 200 to 300 gallons per day for a
family of four. Soils are probably the best renovation for septage. The wetland soils
contain a huge amount of nutrients and support dense vegetation which basically absorbs
most of the nutrients to include phosphate, potassium, and nitrates.

Mr. McCahill said there are a variety of reports that Mr. Moeller has written. If you go
through them some of the reports conflict with each other as to what the topic is. It would
be important to have one report which addresses the application before us. We would like
a final report from the Soil Scientist. It gets convoluted when you start referring to previous
reports that were written.

Mr. Moeller said his report dated January 5, 2009 is a stand along report for this
application. In the introduction of this report, the second paragraph, states he took the
relevant information from those previous reports regarding this application. The relevant
point from the reports dated March 7, 2008 and March 24, 2008 have been incorporated
into this report. The old reports are not needed.

Mr. Whitney requested this application be continued for one more meeting. That would
give Mr. Moeller time to finalize his report and give the commission time to read the existing
report. There will be a fourth report. At one point the plan changed from a four bedroom to
a five bedroom house. For a five bedroom septic system, the DPH assumes 150 gallon per
bedroom which is based on 75 gallons per person per day, two people per bedroom. They
assume there’s ten people living there, which could happen, but it’s not the norm. Most
families living in these four, five and six bedroom houses do not have 8, 10 or 12 people
living there, so septic systems are over designed for most normal usage.

Mr. Whitney said they design septic systems for a single family residential home based on
the Ct Public Health Code when the design flows are under 5,000 gallons per day; for a five
bedroom house that is 750 gallons per day which is well under that 5,000 gallons per day
threshold. The DEP has a pollution renovation analysis for larger septic system that would
                                                                                IWC 03/03/09
                                                                                  Page 4023

not apply to this. He tried to use the pollution renovation analysis as a basis. He looked at
the four major pollutants that the DEP is concerned with; phosphate and nitrogen are two of
the nutrients that are pollutants. Phosphate hasn’t been proven to be harmful to people but
it is a concern to waterbodies and watercourses as it can cause algae and plant growth,
and oxygen depletion. These wetlands on site are not waterbodies but just areas of poorly
drained soils. He went through the DEP method to see if this design met their
requirements.

Phosphate average concentration for sewage is 20 mg. per liter, 30 to 40% is removed by
treatment based on a daily flow of 750 gallons per day, concentration in the ground ends up
at 34.5 grams per day. A 6 month reduction of phosphate, which DEP recommends by
treating the septic system, ends up at 6,277 grams per month, one gram is equivalent to
the size of one Tylenol pill. There’s a cross section for the septic system and the soil has a
certain weight and phosphate absorption capacity based on the septic system design, the
four trenches and the cross section. The distance for the soil to absorb and convert
phosphate to harmless is about four tenths of a foot, which is a little under six inches from
the septic system.

Nitrogen is not broken down in the soil, it’s done by dilution. The DEP looks at the amount
of rain water that falls on this four acre site. The average rain fall in Connecticut is one
hundredth of a foot per day. We assume 50% infiltrates into the ground, which is then
available for dilution. There is enough water on this site to dilute the nitrogen.

The other potential for disease causing pollutants are bacteria and viruses. The bacteria
dies off over time. The DEP looks at it as how much travel time there is as the water, with
the bacteria, travels through the soil. Travel time is based on the permeability of the soil.
In three weeks it travels twelve feet in this slowly drained soil.

The viruses are treated by unsaturated flow. Viruses live in water but die off in unsaturated
conditions. That’s accomplished by elevating the bottom of the septic system a certain
vertical distance above the water table. Eighteen inches are required by the Public Health
Code, the DEP requirement is 24”, this septic is designed to provide 24”.

Mr. Whitney stated that he has submitted the design to the FVHD for a review. He is
requesting to continue this hearing, until next month, waiting for the FVHD review and the
updated report from Mr. Moeller. Diane Harding, at the FVHD, said they go by the
requirements of the Public Health Code so we’re not going to get a review from her on the
DEP criteria. This is an honest attempt to try to convince the Commission that this is a
properly designed, properly constructed system so there should not be any impact to the
waterbody. This is the only site available for the septic system, others areas were tested.

Mr. Moeller said the nutrients; phosphates, potassium, and heavy metals basically get tied
up by the soil particles very quickly and very tightly. They do not get built up in the soil
used by the soil bacteria and by the vegetation. These are nutrients that come in through
the sewage and are subject to several different chemical reactions and some components
are converted to ammonia. Some are given off to the atmosphere and some absorbed by
                                                                                  IWC 03/03/09
                                                                                    Page 4024

vegetation and soil bacteria. The organic matter is very important, it has a very high
exchange capacity. This is where the nutrients are absorbed. There will be no impact on

the wetlands based on this.

Mr. Whitney said when fill is brought in for a septic system, a test has to be submitted to
show a proper type of sandy fill. Design Engineers are required to do a percolation test in
the fill after it’s in place to show it properly drains. There are also spot inspections
conducted by the Health District. Part of the construction protocol could be that while the
fill in the other areas is being hauled in, they could do inspections on a certain schedule.
There are standards for defining clean fill. They could do a periodic sieve test where you
take a 5 gallon bucket of material to a testing lab and run it through required testing.

Mr. Moeller said a septic system needs to be in well drained soil, with unsaturated flow;
then the water flows very slowly down through the soil. The reason you can’t put a septic
system in a wetland is it’s already saturated and it would start having problems with
material and the system would not provide proper renovation. The wetland areas are
saturated in the spring. If the system failed, the material would come to the surface and
flows down slope. If it flowed into a wetland soil, it wouldn’t be a problem; it would support
vegetation and would not be a health hazard to the wetlands itself. If it goes into a water-
body, it can flow with the water to wherever. The leach fields have to be in well drained
soil. There is another good aspect of this lot. Vermillion Drive cuts off any run off onto the
property. The water on the property is from rain fall, not from any other water shed area.

 Mr. Whitney said the soil profile on this site is two or three inches of topsoil, then about 18”
or 2’ of a moderately drained subsoil, then below 2’ you get into a compact fill. What they
want the sewage to do is get into the subsoil, not into the hardpan. They want to get the
water in the ground because a septic system is designed to be a disposal system; they
want the water to go away. It’s a treatment system. In Connecticut it’s a sub-surface
system, everything legally has to happen underground. As it travels through the ground
and is renovated, it joins the ground water in the wetlands and at some point it could come
to the surface in the wetlands. They are building up the septic area about 2 1/2 “ with fill.
On the slope, fill will go out about 8 or 9’. The angle of the slope will not change, it will be
graded out to create a yard around the house. They will create a flat area around the
house. There is an old shallow dug well at the bottom of the property. It will not be used
as a water supply for the house. Mr. Moeller had a suggestion to fill it with stone and not
cap it.

COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC


OTHER BUSINESS

The Connecticut Water Company (CWC) and Avon Water Company (AWC) - proposal to
pursue a CT DEP General Diversion Permit for an interconnector between the AWC water
system and the CWC Naugatuck Region/Collinsville system
                                                                                IWC 03/03/09
                                                                                  Page 4025

Mr. Thier excused himself from this application. Mr. Beauchamp took over to chair the
meeting.

Mr. David Murphy representing the Avon Water Company and Connecticut Water Company
was present. He said each member has been given a map showing the DEP permit
application requesting to move some water from the Avon Water Company’s system to the
Connecticut Water Company’s system. The Town of Avon is served by three water
companies, Avon Water Co, Connecticut Water Co Collinsville system and part of the
Unionville Water Company system. The request is to move some of the water from the
Avon Water system to the Collinsville system of the Connecticut Water Co., the Avon Water
Company is served by wells, and they use a ground water supply. The Collinsville system
is served by the Nepaug reservoir treatment water plant run by the MDC, which is a surface
water supply system.

The general permit is written by DEP so it’s not tailored to a specific activity, it covers a
category of activities. It covers directions of water up to 1 million gallons a day. That’s
never going to happen as the Collinsville section on a whole doesn’t use a million gallons
per day. There will be days when there’s peak demand, hot days in the summer. It
provides a water source security measure. If the Nepaug Reservoir should become
contaminated and Collinsville couldn’t get water from the treatment plant, they could
temporarily get water from the Avon Water Company. And visa versa, if the Avon Water
Company had a fire and a lot of flow was needed, water could flow back from the
Collinsville system. The interconnection is a benefit to both the Avon Water Company and
the Connecticut Water Company; and it’s an overall benefit to the Town of Avon.

Mr. Murphy continued. The general diversion permits for DEP are structured in such a way
that because there is no public notification, no hearing process that’s available to them.
The DEP therefore requests that local commissions get a copy of the permit application just
for informational purposes. What we are requesting from DEP is permission to move water
from one place to another. This will be accomplished via a 12” pipe. What’s nice about this
location is there are subdivisions going in on both sides of the service areas. The existing
water lines are already close together and they are in close proximity to the tank. That’s
what makes it an attractive location. The reason for this project is there will be peak
summer days; the Collinsville system is at its maximum using the treatment plant and
would like extra water especially with all the new homes to be constructed in both towns.
Both water companies will be able to use it and will charge each other. Having them
connected is beneficial if one water supply has been contaminated, the other water
company can help them out.

Mr. Craig Paddilong said there is an agreement between Avon Water Co. and Connecticut
Water Co. with a fee structure set up. For 1,000 gallons there is a fee. There is no charge
to the town. It’s a sharing of a resource. This is an agreement between two businesses.
The two companies had been in discussion for years for this type of arrangement. In 2001,
a dead dog was found in the Nepaug Reservoir that effectively shut down the single source
of water supply to the Collinsville system, which supplies to part of Avon. They had to lay
                                                                                 IWC 03/03/09
                                                                                   Page 4026

fire hose down Secret Lake Road to make the interconnection that this will facilitate. This
connector will be in place all the time.

Mr. McCahill said this is not a regulated activity, it’s a process established for the DEP.
The Commission will not be voting on this.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr. Applefield made a change to the January 6, 2009 minutes. On page 4008, he added a
change of regulations does constitute a substantial change in circumstances. To the third
sentence he thinks we should approve the application he added without deciding whether a
change in regulations constitutes a substantial change in circumstances.

Mr. Applefield made a motion to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by
Mr. Logan. The vote was unanimous.

Mr. Usich made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

NEXT MEETING

April 7, 2009

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Shirley C. Kucia, Clerk

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:3
posted:7/8/2011
language:Danish
pages:9