TOWN OF
WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY
OLD
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
The Town of
I. Call to Order
The meeting was
called to order by Chairman Robert Powitz at
II. Roll Call of Members – by WPCA Secretary
WPCA Secretary,
Also in attendance were; Peter Grose of Fuss & O’Neill, Don Lucas, WPCA Coordinator, Robbie Marshall, WPCA Recording Clerk, and members of the public.
III.
Approval
of Minutes
The WPCA
reviewed the Regular Meeting minutes from the
Page 2 Section
V Paragraph
5
DELETE: eminent ADD:
imminent
A motion was made by
IV.
Open
Forum
V.
Chairman’s
Comments and Correspondence
Chairman Powitz said that the WPCA attorney had been on vacation for a few weeks, but that he received an email from him saying that the letter from Betsy Wingfield was in the public domain so he could read it into the minutes. First there was a series of letters concerning the part-time clerk’s position. Apparently she has been hired. She will work for the CT River Area Health District for 15 hours a week and provide support functions for the WPCA. She will be paid $13 an hour; her salary will come out of the WPCA budget. She was hired to input the pump out information into the Carmody system and it will benefit both the Health District and the WPCA.
The letter that was received on April 17th from Betsy Wingfield was discussed at a meeting held with Michael Pace earlier in the evening. Responses and a list of how the WPCA will meet the DEP’s demands are being prepared. The letter is included on the following pages; 3, 4, and 5.
A response was written almost immediately. Mr. Pace said that while we do not agree with some of your characterizations, it provides us with your perspective. The WPCA is proceeding to complete the items you listed in paragraph one. A more detailed response will be provided by the WPCA. A meeting was requested to discuss the letter. Attorney Wertam said the letter should be made public for the Town’s benefit. Chairman Powitz said if we don’t do what we said we would, we will have a sewer.
VI.
Old
Business
a. Saybrook Commons: A
letter was received from Attorney Lord.
It was forwarded to Attorney Wertam.
It will be scanned and emailed to the WPCA. The letter said that a draft agreement has
been enclosed. Attorney Wertam updated
the agreement; as the one from
Doris Zumbroski asked if Peter Grose would review the figures as it involves system maintenance 20 years in the future. Chairman Powitz said yes. He will speak to Attorney Wertam regarding Ms. Wingfield’s letter and Saybrook Commons.
Mr. Grose said he has read the agreement and passed his comments on to the attorney. They did increase the dollar amount, but don’t explain it very well.
Mr. Wehrly asked when the clock starts ticking. Chairman Powitz replied that they have to submit it.
b. Small Cities Grant: Pavel Wilson said he spoke with Attorney Wertam and there are no problems with the documents. They are standard verbiage and he will send a cover letter to that effect. Mr. Wilson emailed the other members regarding where they are in their process and they will respond. Chairman Powitz said the project is coming together quite nicely.
c. Status of Coordinator: Don Lucas has been working but is not officially Coordinator yet.
d. Public Information Session: Chairman Powitz said they would clean up Ordinance 75 and speak to Attorney Wertam about the type of product to be developed for the sessions; what information should be included. Michael Pace was expected to outline the funding mechanisms for the repairs. A couple of scenarios would be provided that would keep it from being that onerous; loans and grants.
Mr. Lutz commented that only 5 persons had nameplates and that it was very important. There was a discussion on whether or not they were still necessary.
e. Status of the new pump out ordinance: Don Lucas reviewed his
comments from his memo dated
Chairman Powitz said that the language in the Ordinance won’t sit well with the public. Don Lucas’s comments are well taken.
Mr. Lucas said some of them may
seem trivial but we are dealing with designers and public installers with
limited
The first item on page 2, #4 was the addition of the word “local” to registered septic tank cleaners etc. There was a discussion on the area that is considered local, the approved list from the State, and those that have complied with pumpout paperwork in the past. Ultimately it was decided that the word should not be added because it is on page 24.
Page 2 - # 6 – Mr. Lucas asked if a system is working and the pumpout is conformed to how do you get an approval and permit to discharge? If the current permit to discharge does not have an expiration date how can the threat to non-renewal be made? There was a discussion on non-compliant systems and non-compliance to the pumpout schedule and loss of the discharge permit. It was decided no change was necessary.
Page 4 – definition of “bedroom.” Mr. Lucas described the State technical standards which have stood up in court; access to bath, privacy, building code compliance (light, ventilation, and egress), and a smaller opening, 3 feet wide (not 5 feet.) The decision was to use the State technical standards.
Page 4 – Mr. Lucas suggested adding a definition for “Building
Modification,” meaning “any internal change without an increase in design
Page 5 – The definition of Cesspools – “must be replaced in
accordance with Public Health Code Guidelines,” should be added. There was a discussion on lots being fully
compliant and some
Page 6 – “Failed System” - the word “less” should stay in.
Page 11 – States the permit to discharge shall be valid for a period of five years or less. Change should be Permits issued “after the effective date of this ordinance” will be valid for five years or less.
Page 11 – Add the word or after items # 3 and 4.
Page 12 – The failure to pump out a system is not listed as a reason for revocation or suspension. This should be included.
Page 12 – There are no definitions of Notice of Revocation or Notice of Suspension. They should be included per Public Health Code (PHC).
Page 13 – Approval – There was a discussion on how to design a
septic system for a shed. “No
residential building, residential institution, or nonresidential building… that
discharges wastewater.”
Page 13 - Approval - add numbers in front of no building conversion, no change of use etc. for clarity.
Page 14 – Section 7 – Item a - last sentence requires that a professional engineer “certifies” the system to meet the requirements. This would place an unreasonable burden on the homeowner. Only a licensed installer is necessary to prepare a record drawing and submit it to the Health Department.
Page 14 – Section 7 Item b – The first sentence says it must be demonstrated that a code compliant system can be installed. The third sentence says that it must be installed. Chairman Powitz said he would let Attorney Wertam rework it. There was a discussion on building conversions and AT systems. Chairman Powitz said they would need clarification on the language. Mr. Grose suggested the WPCA steer away from AT systems, as that is another set of rules. Mr. Lucas advised to just let the PHC address the building conversions. Chairman Powitz said let the PHC address the building conversions and craft some further guidelines. Elsa Payne said or we can just apply this conversion to conventional septic tanks; exclude AT systems, they are covered by something else. Not in here. Chairman Powitz said there should be some language that says if you’re going to convert right now you have to comply with the PHC or any future regulation issued by the DPH or DEP without mentioning AT systems.
Mr. Lucas said why are we addressing building conversions at all. Chairman Powitz said he will ask, but to leave it in the definition and sections pertaining to the PHC. He will ask Attorney Wertam.
Page 16 – The word “and” should be inserted before item 4 instead of a semi-colon.
Page 23 – Item B – states that the pumpout permit be returned to the now non-existent “Old Saybrook Health Department,” will be changed to the CRAIDH.
Page 23 – Item C – effective date of whenever the system is pumped out.
Page 24 – Item D – leave out “registered with Health Department” and insert “calendar days.”
Page 24 – Item E – The word “no” needs to be inserted in the last sentence.
Mr. Lucas suggested that the use of capitalized words like “Septic System”, “Professional Engineer” etc. is inconsistent throughout the document and not grammatically correct.
Mr. Grose suggested that some thresholds be set about where this should be applied. For example if someone has a 900 gallon tank that should be a 1000 gallon tank; where do you set the bar? Certainly, cesspools and steel tanks should be replaced. Chairman Powitz added that a 4-bedroom house with a 500 gallon tank would require upgrade.
Chairman Powitz said he would give it back to the attorney and he can check the precedents. What is an undersized tank; it cannot be subjective.
Ms. Payne said there is always a disclaimer in the regulations that say if your system is equivalent to a 1000 gallon tank. Mr. Grose said, the concern is how you word this. It may limit your ability to get it passed, if someone has a 900 gallon tank, they are going to vote against it. If it says 75% of the then current PHC requirements; 750 or less for a 1000 gallon. So you should focus your efforts on getting the environmental benefit without replacing something marginal. When you get to the WWMD ordinance, when someone is going to replace it anyway, you want to bring it up to code. Here, you are adding some proactive measures to the PHC, like safety factors, but then how much further do you want to go?
Chairman Powitz said he liked the 75% of the current PHC. Mr. Lucas said 90% wouldn’t work. The PHC says if you have a 3-bedroom house, you can add 1 more bedroom. You can legitimately have a 4-bedroom house on a 1000 gallon tank, instead of 1250. Someone may have had an addition approved and then the ordinance is passed and they have to replace the tank. 75% may work for Ordinance 75, then when you get to the WWMD you may have to revise it.
Mrs. Zumbroski said when you are selling property, doesn’t the tank have to be a certain size? There is nothing in Zoning that requires inspection before it is sold. Mr. Lucas replied that the onus is on the buyer to have inspections done. When the cleaner pumps it, he recommends to the buyer that the tank is only 750 gallons and that it is undersized for the size of the house. Mrs. Zumbroski said should we put something here to protect us, if people buy it anyway.
Chairman Powitz said the best thing
that could happen is if the State adopted Title 5, which they didn’t want to
do. If you have a property transfer, you
upgrade the system.
Mrs. Zumbroski said he doesn’t have
veto power. Chairman Powitz said the
precedent hasn’t been set anywhere in
Robert Hansen asked if the WPCA is
considering residential and non-residential systems. Chairman Powitz said both. There was a discussion on frequent pumping
and how it will trigger the Carmody system and
Mrs. Zumbroski advised that the number of people in the house impacts the system. There was further discussion on soils and proving that the Town has systems that are functioning properly.
Mrs. Zumbroski asked if the ordinance can be amended. Mr. Lucas said yes, but it would have to go to a town meeting. Chairman Powitz reminded the assembly that the ordinance addresses existing facilities, not specifically those in the WWMD. We want to target the cesspools and steel tanks because they kill people. If we have an undersized tank, we could probably define it as functioning.
Mr. Grose said I don’t know why you have to say anything about that, because the PHC takes care of it.
Chairman Powitz said if you are
pumping out every week, it’s a holding tank.
The system is failing. There was
continued discussion on preventative maintenance versus failure. There must be a definition of a failed
system. Language may have to be added
about there being an investigation by the Health Department if the pumpouts are
frequent. They will be
Mrs. Zumbroski suggested measuring
the size of the tank versus the number of bedrooms. 750 gallons with 2 bedrooms is acceptable;
750 with 6 is not. Chairman Powitz said
he would speak with Peter Grose, Don Lucas, and Pavel Wilson about these items.
Mr. Grose said that he would send along Amendment V. It covers work from the Mediation process on. Getting it signed is very important, so that the funding from the DEP can be provided. They are finishing the Facilities Plan and then it can be paid for. The DEP insists on reviewing everything they may fund. It will be sent as a draft, reviewed, and signed.
Mr. Engborg asked if anything was heard from DEP or DPH regarding AT systems.
Chairman Powitz replied, no. Mr. Engborg said if they want prices to give
the public we have to have the systems.
Chairman Powitz said he would ask them face-to-face to tell us what to
do. Right now the only ones trained in
AT systems in the state of
Mr. Wehrly asked how the WPCA could discuss AT systems when they don’t know the costs.
Chairman Powitz said this is why we have to wait until we get the information. Mr. Wehrly said it will be the same type of meeting we had at the Goodwin.
VII.
New
Business
a. Review and Pay Bills
There were two contractual bills from Shipman & Goodwin presented for payment.
The first was for legal services
rendered from
The second was for legal services
rendered from
A motion was made by
Chairman Powitz said he would scan the budget and forward it via email.
Peter Grose said that
The WPCA’s next course will be on May 29th.
VIII.
Adjournment
A motion to
adjourn was made at
Respectfully Submitted,
Old Saybrook Water Pollution Control Authority
Robbie A. Marshall
Robbie A. Marshall
WPCA Recording Clerk