DEPManagingSecondaryImpacts

      The Town of Old Saybrook Water Pollution Control Authority met on Monday, February 23, 2004, at the
Pasbeshauke Pavilion at Saybrook Point Park, College Street Extension, Old Saybrook, Connecticut to conduct its
regularly scheduled fourth Monday of the month meeting. There was no quorum for a regular meeting; however Dennis
Greci of DEP gave a Power Point presentation.

      In Attendance:

Vice Chairman George Gwizd, Chuck Wehrly, and Nelson Engborg. Chairman John Lord, Ed Gyllenhammer, Robert
Powitz, and Thomas McKenna were absent.

Also in attendance were WPCA Coordinator, Stephen Luckett, Dennis Greci of DEP, Robbie Marshall, WPCA Clerk,
Peter Grose of Fuss and O’Neil and members of the public.

I.        Presentation – Managing Secondary Impacts – Preventing or Mitigating
        Unintended Secondary Impacts on Water Pollution Control Projects

Dennis Greci explained that regardless of what options you implement, you have to deal with secondary impacts. Does
it cause other issues? Land use is controlled by Planning and Zoning. The regulations are based in part on the ability
of the land to absorb the wastewater. This could result in changes in a neighborhood, like Chalker Beach, that aren’t
anticipated. We want to avoid any negative changes. It could affect the ability to use a property right now or how a
property gets developed in the future.

He introduced the term “areas of environmental concern,” referring to wetlands, flood plains, flood hazard areas,
beaches, and dunes. Any of these areas we want to be able to consider. The presence of an area of concern is a
benefit in many cases. It allows us to trigger a law to keep development under control.

The first issue is undeveloped land. He used examples in Great Hammock. Right now it is undeveloped because it is
wetlands and some of the lots are too small.

Mr. Greci recommended that the WPCA take a second look at the study areas and exclude any undeveloped land. It
does no good to have it in the boundaries and could ultimately prove harmful. He said that a lawyer could argue that
the vacant land was included in the boundary implying that the technology could be used on that land as well.

Coordinator Luckett noted that the WPCA has put into the remediation standards that they only apply to existing
conditions; vacant land must meet the health code requirements.

Mr. Greci said you’ve got a conflict between your maps and your regulations. An attorney could get it overturned
because it is inconsistent. Vacant land inside the study areas would not be able to be excised, but areas like Maple
Avenue and Great Hammock could have the lines redrawn to eliminate the vacant land on the borders.
Mr. Luckett said the real concern is if you put infrastructure in and it goes by vacant property.

Mr. Greci responded that he is concerned about the decentralized area. A lawyer could say the maps are allowing
technology in that area and you could see that land being developed. Why risk it? He said this is something you may
consider; moving the border and taking out the vacant land.

Jean Castagno asked about clarification on excluding vacant land.

Mr. Greci said you could draw the boundary to exclude the vacant land on the fringes. He volunteered to help redraw
the boundaries.

George Gwizd asked about a piece of property owned by the State.

Mr. Greci agreed it couldn’t be developed but didn’t know why it was included in the study area. He said the north side
of Barnes Road is all vacant and a property owner is trying to develop it.

Doris Zumbroski asked if you pay taxes on it, why can’t it be developed?

Mr. Greci said you own it so you have to pay taxes.

Mr. Gwizd said the state looked at the wetlands in Old Saybrook and said you are going to be taxed on it or you can sell
it to us.

Mr. Greci said sometimes owners hold on to property to maintain access to a beach or lake. It also gives voting rights.
You have to decide if it’s worth owning and paying taxes on.

Mr. Greci said Mr. Scully said make sure they define adequately what changes are allowed when they decide to use an
alternative technology. Homes served by subsurface sewage disposal are regulated by the sanitarian and limited by
the health code. The strategy is to control growth.

The language in the legislation was intentionally crafted so that we could transfer a lot of the things we do with
conventional sewers to the decentralized system and not invent a whole new set of statutes to cover the same issues.

Three big tools we wind up using to try to control things we’ve funded: The Connecticut Environmental Policy Act
(CEPA), the Clean Water Fund – what provides the money to plan, design, and build, and the Connecticut General
Statutes regarding WPCA powers. Everything that the State provides money for has to go through CEPA; has to meet
the requirements. OPM is the last reviewer and projects must conform to the Conservation and Development Policies
Plan for Connecticut.

Mr. Luckett verified that the C & D overrides the Town plan and said we must be aware of that and see how it fits into
the Town’s plan.

Mr. Greci said there are new maps and asked if Mr. Grose was able to get them.

Peter Grose said he was not able to get them for many communities.

Mr. Greci explained that OPM found that some plans were not consistent with the State C & D, and held them up for 2
years. You have to look at the C & D carefully, but it’s a good tool. You can tell developers that are proposing
something with high density that it conflicts with the C & D, and what DEP approved when they funded the project. The
C & D for 1998-2003 needs updating. They are 1 ½ years behind on updating maps. It’ll be adopted and there will be
a new set of maps.

Mr. Luckett said our Town Planner stays on top of it, but if we were not on top of it, the State would override it. When
the Planning Commission did a lot of updating on the Plan of C & D for the Town they did a lot of interface with the State
to make sure we were not in conflict.

Mr. Greci added that all grants must go through OPM. STEAP (Small Town Economic Assistance Program) grants
especially. You have to make sure what you have is consistent with what they have on their books. Just because there
is a conflict doesn’t mean you won’t get funding, you just have to justify it.

Mr. Greci discussed How it Works. The problem must be clearly defined and not exceed the bounds of the existing
problem. As long as you don’t expand the service you’re providing into undeveloped areas, you’ll be able to use this as
a tool. It also delineates areas for growth. They have mapping where growth is programmed and where it is being
discouraged. They’ve also got open space and conservation land and rural land. Proposed sewer service areas must
conform to the C & D plan as much as possible. If it is shown as existing, OPM will sign off on it. If it shows up as future
growth, they won’t. No excess capacity for unplanned growth.

Mr. Grose said it sounds like discussions we had 4 years ago when Old Saybrook said (within the Town’s Plan of
Conservation and Development) to DEP the decentralized program does a better job of controlling growth than the pipe
does. That was one of the reasons for going the way they’ve gone.

Mr. Greci said the DEP Clean Water Fund provides the primary funding as long as the project is in compliance with
CEPA. The Fund generally limits funding to that necessary to address existing needs and identify future needs.

There are lots of ways to limit the service area. Make sure the boundaries are drawn to exactly the areas you want
served. Tighten them down and make sure they match. It’s up to you to decide if you want to expand the boundaries.
They are not cast in stone. The WPCA can request expansion from DEP or you can refuse to do it and a developer
won’t be able to build. The boundaries on the map in DEP gives WPCA incredible power.

Mr. Luckett said adjacent areas can be included for remediation purposes.

Mr. Greci agreed you can change the map, adopt it, and make it legal. Another way to deal with it, (which applies more
to the sewer) is to put a condition into the funding agreement. If the lot couldn’t have been developed prior to the sewer
then the lot cannot be developed now. It is not viewed as a taking. They never had an ability to develop it; as long as
you don’t assess the property. It is a legal method of protecting those inland lots. We can build it into the grant
conditions.

Mr. Grose asked if environmentally sensitive areas are the same as areas of environmental concern.

Mr. Greci replied yes.
Mr. Greci described control methods. In Woodstock they cut out every property that was capable of housing a septic
system from the sewer line. In some cases you can control your service area by design limitation; but that is not a
strong one to use. The municipal ordinance is a powerful tool, as long as it matches everything you’ve done in your
facilities plan. The discharge permit, 100,000 gallons for example, would prevent additional properties from being
added, when it is at capacity.

Dick Wertheim asked how do you deal with the 150% capacity that we’ve built into them.

Mr. Greci replied that the permit is for the design and not factor of safety.

Mr. Grose added that the permit allows for 100,000 gallons a day even though the design is for 150. But 150 does not
show up on the permit.

Mr. Greci said the system is designed to handle a peak flow; more than what the permit says.

The Water Pollution Control Plan, what Fuss & O’Neill will finish writing and will be adopted, has immense power. Once
it is submitted and DEP approves it, it kicks in all the powers of the State statute.

Special Funding Conditions are used to restrict future development. If DEP and the WPCA put it in the contract, it is
legal. If there is something specific that isn’t covered elsewhere we can put it here.

With design limits, pumping stations can be sized to limit capacity, permits can limit the volumes, and you may be limited
on what you can send (more for town to town than area to area.)

II.        Questions

Mrs. Castagno wanted to know how we know if Ordinance 74 falls into this.

Mr. Luckett said it follows the remediation standards. It is under the health code. There is nothing about advanced
treatment systems.

Mrs. Castagno asked about environmentally sensitive areas.

Mr. Luckett said we will do that. The document is not final yet.

Mr. Wertheim asked about buying property in Old Saybrook. Does someone tell you what you can do?

Mr. Luckett said it’s a process you go through with Zoning and Sanitation.

Mr. Greci said no one tells you up front. He said this is usually people moving from an area with sewers. There is little
you can do but educate them as they move in, about their septic system. It is this board’s job and the sanitarian’s job.
The problem is not on the government it’s on the banks.

Mr. Grose suggested this may be a groundbreaking program that would target realtors and make some in-roads.

Mrs. Zumbroski asked if someone could come in and convert Chalker Beach to Atlantic City.

Mr. Greci said under the decentralized plan and with small community systems you will never see a large intense
development there because you’re not going to have the capacity to support it. The treatment system you’re proposing
to put in won’t support development like that. The decentralized system in other parts of town is just designed to
support single family development. If you’ve got the town sewered, you’ve actually got more control than if you don’t,
because the developer can bring in his own technology and do a Westbrook Factory Outlet.

Mrs. Zumbroski asked if Chalker Beach was to put in a little sewer system what would be the chances of being able to
expand that?

Mr. Greci replied that the problem is the site you’re proposing to discharge to is limited in how much flow it will take. It
will only take a certain amount and after that it will fail. This is one argument for not going to the Connecticut River.
The Connecticut River can take the flow. You can’t shut down a developer by saying there is too much flow for the
River. It won’t stop developers from Stop & Shop that have its own treatment system. I don’t envision any more big
pipes on the shoreline because they are capable of building the black boxes.

Mr. Wertheim asked what the status of the land purchase in Town is.

Mr. Greci said he has no idea, he is not in the loop, and does not know whose hands it’s in.

Mr. Luckett asked how many technologies are in the review or approval stage in the State of Connecticut for single
family use.

Mr. Greci said, damn little. Maybe 4 or 5. There was a discussion on composting toilets.

Mr. Grose said the main message he has taken from this, is to go and review what you are doing and have done, and
make sure you have the mechanisms in place to control development to what you want it to be. And so it’s consistent
with the State. We talked about what the WPCA can do, what about other agencies?

Mr. Greci discussed the Gap leaving and the owner of the shopping center calling Old Saybrook the “Downtown of the
Shoreline.” He said it was an interesting comment that might not be what the Town wants to be known as. He agreed
that the WPCA should talk with the other commissions as much as possible and let them know what its intentions are
and how it impacts on their intentions. Make sure Economic Development knows that we are not talking about providing
sewers anywhere but the problem areas.

Mr. Grose said another aspect is the local Plan of Conservation and Development. The WPCA has had a lot of
comment on it and better communication than other towns.

Mr. Gwizd asked if there is any action on the affordable housing development near the train station.

Mr. Greci felt it was an idle threat but that it will always be something to watch out for; a developer coming in with a black
box. The term to be watched for is “active adult community.” He gets more calls per week from developers looking to
build these. He would not be surprised to see that show up when a large piece of land becomes available. You have to
watch out for them because they are residential properties using alternative technologies and if it goes belly up, the
WPCA gets to own and operate it.

Mr. Luckett said if they use advanced technology it is not a problem. But they come in with 32 bedrooms to avoid it and
they are guaranteed to fail at some point down the line.

There was continued discussion on obtaining a qualified operator for these technologies, assisted living facilities, and
cites available for active adult living. A community system, two buildings connected by pipe, becomes a WPCA
responsibility if the facility goes belly up.

Mr. Greci gave an explanation of responsibilities; 2 or more properties connected to a system is a community system,
regardless of the flow and is regulated by DEP. 5000 gallons gets a DEP permit. Stop & Shop is not residential.

There was further discussion on the opportunity, when a project is first approved, to put financial considerations in
place to protect the Town from having to take responsibility in the event of a bankruptcy.

Mr. Greci asked the WPCA to consider subjects for the next DEP presentation.

III.        Adjournment

The discussion ended at 8:55PM.

Respectfully Submitted,
Old Saybrook Water Pollution Control Authority

Robbie A. Marshall
WPCA Recording Clerk