Town of Old Lyme
Water Pollution Control Authority
Old Lyme Town Hall Main Floor Meeting Room
Special Meeting
December 8th, 2015, 7:30pm
Members Present: Chairman Kurt Zemba, Vice-Chairman Rich Prendergast, Dimitri Tolchinski, Rob McCarthy, Andrea Lombard, Frank Chan, Douglas Wilkinson, Sal Cancelliere (alt.) Steve Cinami (alt.)
Also in attendance: First Selectwoman Bonnie Reemsnyder, WPCA Attorney Andrew Lord, Engineering Consultant David Prickett, Vice President of Woodard & Curran Jay Sheehan.
Members Absent/Excused: Donna Bednar, Ernest Lorda, Joseph Carpentino (alt.) arrived late
- Meeting was called to order at 7:30 pm
Chairman Zemba explained that Donna Bednar, Ernest Lorda, could not attend the meeting, so alternates: Sal Cancelliere, and Steve Cinami were appointed to fulfil their seats.
- Approval of Minutes: November 10th 2015, Regular Meeting, 7:30pm
Sal Canceliere stated, that on page 10 of the meeting minutes, Joe Carpentino asked if the WPCA is privy to the data the DEEP used to determine pollution in Hawks Nest. He said that there was a statement that was omitted from the meeting minutes, (which he would like to be added in) made by Jay Sheehan, stating that DEEP did not do any water testing in Hawks Nest Beach, that their primary criteria was density development. Jay Sheehan confirmed that he did in fact make that statement. A motion was made by Doug Wilkinson, seconded by Andrea Lombard to approve the minutes of November 10th with this clarifying statement. Motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Zemba stated that the only correspondence that he had was follow-up from the letter he sent denying Don Johnson’s request for variance regarding the 7 year ordinance to have his septic tank pumped. In the letter it stated that according to the ordinance, he is required to pump his septic system before Jan 2nd, 2016, and if there were any questions or he required additional information to contact the Old Lyme Town Health Office at the Town Hall. Chairman Zemba stated that he did contact the Town Health Office, and talk to Patti Meyers. Mr. Johnson stated that he lives in CA, and is not going to fly out to appeal the decision, but he is planning on coming out in the late spring, and would have the septic tank pumped then if that
was allowed. Chairman Zemba asked Patti to send him an official response granting him temporary hold on pumping until June 30th, 2016.
- First Selectwomen’s Address & Report
First Selectwoman Reemsnyder stated that due to concerns by Hawk’s Nest over what they perceive as lack of data regarding pollution, she requested a meeting with DEEP. She reported that herself, the engineers, the chairman of the WPCA, and the attorney, did have a meeting. She stated that they didn’t expect DEEP to agree to take Hawk’s Nest out of the study all together, but they did have agreement that the town does want more data, and they feel that they can get more data by reviewing additional data sources, which would include data provided by people that have come to the meetings, and their representatives. She stated, the plan will be revised before the final submission to the DEEP, and before the EIE is submitted. She also said that if there are adjustments, the plan
has to change before the EIE is submitted. She reported that according to the DEEP, they are still in compliance with the administrative order, but that means that they need to discuss with the engineers an additional/change in the scope of work. She stated that she had worked out an arrangement with Woodard & Curran to complete the EIE at no additional cost to the town, but, if further testing/work needed to be done beyond what was reasonably expected, it would likely entail additional funds. She stated that this looks like it would fall under that category. She invited the engineers and the attorney to the table.
- Review of WPCA Future Actions re: Holding on the Draft EIE for the Plan Submission
David Pricket reported that the dialog with DEEP was positive, that DEEP was the 1st to acknowledge that this is work beyond the original scope, they encouraged the town to develop a scope of work with the sanitarian & town, and submit that for review, and that they would likely fund that as part of the planning phase of the project.
Jay Sheehan stated that the public process is there for a reason, and what was brought to light was that there is some additional data, and data sources that may need to be looked at, and they need to be considered in the plan. He stated, as plans go, if you change one thing, there is a domino effect, and they need to quantify that if the WPCA agrees to a change in scope. He stated that the DEEP clarified that the plan needs to be changed, and then the EIE submitted.
Andrew Lord stated that there is an order that they need to comply with, and the DEEP is cooperating, saying that they know that the WPCA is moving forward, and know that it will take time. The action items are to send an email to the DEEP saying that they are going to get a revised scope of work, get a schedule together on how they are going to comply with the scope of work, come back to it in January for consideration, and send them a letter saying that in compliance with the order, this is what we are going to do, and this is the schedule we are going to do it, so they know that things are moving forward. He stated that the WPCA needs to see the scope of work, review it, approve it, and the funding needs to be taken care of. He stated that the DEEP is not ready to say that these
areas don’t have a pollution problem, but they are willing to say that they will consider gathering additional information.
David Pricket stated that their willingness to explore additional data was clearly in response to the public input, and pressure from the town.
Chairman Zemba stated that the DEEP is willing to look at additional data, and willing to consider an implementation modification that involves just 1 beach. He stated, in order to do that a lot of questions need to be asked, the WPCA needs to decide if they want to direct Woodard & Curran to put together a scope, and cost estimate, that needs to be approved by the WPCA, and then the BOS, and finally the BOF. He stated that even though there are some funds in reserve, they have agreed that would only be used after collaborating with the BOS and BOF.
Andrea Lombard stated that they took an oath to present a plan based on evidence & data that is in line with the criteria for DEEP and she believes that they are switching sequence. She stated that the process is to form a plan, then submit the EIE, then the public process and public comment. She stated that they are supposed to be the point of reason, that they hired people, had meeting after meeting documenting issues & criteria, and are now backpedaling, looking for additional cost based on inconsistent reasoning.
Rob McCarthy asked if the 1st step is to change the plan, or if the 1st step is collecting and evaluating additional data?
David Pricket replied that their decision tonight is whether or not the WPCA want to collect and evaluate additional data.
Rich Prendergast asked if they have the direction from DEEP in writing. He stated that might help define what steps they have to take.
Andrew Lord stated that there is nothing in writing.
Chairman Zemba stated that DEEP heard what the town was saying, and understands that there is a lot of pushback. He stated that the DEEP in response said that if they want to modify the plan to address 1 beach that does want to move forward, and then we look at additional data for the other beach, that they are open to that, but the plan needs to be modified in order to do that.
Jay Sheehan stated that there are really 2 public comments that they are listening to, one saying stop, and one saying go.
Dimitri Tolchinski stated that he believes that they are moving backward, and doesn’t agree with that, or adding any more additional costs. He stated that they have already spent over $200,000 on the study, and should move forward.
First Selectwoman Reemsnyder clarified that they committed to submit a plan, she stated that it was made very clear that whatever plan that was submitted, would be followed up with an EIE. She stated that the EIE rarely changes the plan, and the plan that the town submits will be ordered to be implemented. She stated that DEEP is reluctant to remove Hawks Nest from the plan, that that is not what the town was suggesting, but they are stating that there are serious concerns that need to be addressed, and don’t want to lose forward motion because Soundview does want to be included. She asked, do we say stop the plan, which the DEEP will not allow? Or do we consult with our engineers and DEEP and talk about what can be adjusted so that the concerns are being addressed.
Doug Wilkinson asked if they are talking about creating a 2-step process, doing Soundview because they are in agreement, then as a second part go back and do more testing in Hawks Nest to see if there is pollution there, or not?
Jay Sheehan replied that that is exactly the scope of work that they are talking about. He stated that they have to put a testing plan together, make sure that they have all the data, they were told that there is data from the public that they haven’t seen, and it is unfair to ignore that.
Doug Wilkinson asked, by going forward with Soundview and delaying Hawks Nest to a later time, what does that do to the cost, to have to create another project, and hook them up to the sewers?
Rich Prendergast suggested that he doesn’t believe that anyone could answer that.
Jay Sheehan stated that the cost of construction is cheaper today than it will be tomorrow.
Rich Prendergast stated that they are going to build a system, and they are not going to refund everyone that pays into it if someone comes along later.
David Pricket stated that there is a conveyance system, there is a pump station proposed, regardless of where that pump station goes there are x number of people that have allocated capacity to go into that pump station. If Hawks Nest is not in, and that pump station gets built, and the capacity does not exist for them, and they are required to connect later, that is going to be a redundant infrastructure. He stated that there could be an upfront cost, and people could buy into that capacity now, whether they are sewered or not.
Jay Sheehan added that the DEEP and the town made it clear about not designing the sewers for the future, but designing them for the need.
David Pricket stated that this isn’t about whether Hawks Nest has pollution or not. He stated that based on the data collected, he stated, it does, period. The town has said that, the consultants have said that, and the state has said that. He stated, to paraphrase DEEP’s words; you don’t have the right to pollute, and solve that problem on your schedule. Absent considering additional data, which would present a different timeline for Hawks Nest, you can’t just arbitrarily say that you are going to deal with Hawks Nest 3 years or 5 years from now.
Rich Prendergast asked if they could wait, do the testing, and do the whole thing later?
Chairman Zemba replied that the state & Dept. of Health have already decided that there is pollution. He stated that if Rich is suggesting doing lot by lot testing, it will cost $20,000- $100,000, and take over a year, and he is unsure if DEEP will wait for that.
Rob McCarthy asked if the plan could be broken in 2, and make the plan just Soundview, but evaluate Hawks Nest more, and consider other alternatives that may solve Hawks Nest’s problems?
Andrew Lord replied that that is exactly the concept. They are under an order to present a plan to the DEEP, but because of the feedback from the public, that Hawks Nest doesn’t want to be a part of this plan right now, the DEEP agreed to let the town study the data, and gather more information. The plan will still need to be submitted that says, this is what we are going to do, and this is how we are going to address Hawks Nest. The DEEP talked about having a tiered approach, which they have done in other towns.
David Pricket stated that the data either allows the town to consider alternatives that weren’t part of the current plan, or to monitor Hawks Nest until such time that a solution is implemented.
Rob McCarthy stated that there are areas in Hawks Nest, away from the immediate shoreline, that have larger lots, better soil, and depth to groundwater. He stated, that maybe, if a more detailed evaluation is done, Hawks Nest can be broken down into subareas with a more detailed approach.
Andrea Lombard stated that the same evaluation criteria should take place for Hawks Nest, and Soundview. If they say that Hawks Nest needs to be evaluated lot by lot, logically, they would need to the same for Soundview.
Rob McCarthy disagreed, stating that Soundview has very dense development, commercial development, and a completely different use.
Steve Cinami stated, regarding the state process, if they submit the plan as is, it will need to be implemented as is. He stated that there is a very slim chance that public comment will change the EIE, so once the EIE is in, it is locked in. He stated, if there is litigation from Hawks Nest, it delays the process for everyone, not just for Hawks Nest.
Andrea Lombard asked what was exactly in the order from DEEP.
David Pricket replied that the order from DEEP was to finalize the plan.
Andrea Lombard asked the engineers, if they had justification besides public opinion, based on science and the engineering criteria.
Jay Sheehan stated that there is additional data, that they haven’t seen, that conflicts with some of the data that they have.
First Selectwoman Reemsnyder stated that it is the town’s plan, not the engineer’s plan, and it is the town’s decision on what that plan says. She stated that she believed that required a conversation with the DEEP.
Jay Sheehan stated that they are not talking about changing data in the plan; they are talking about changing the implementation strategy.
Rich Prendergast stated that the plan cannot be implemented as is, it’s either nothing, or change.
Andrea Lombard asked, what happens if at a later time, they again mount up enough public opinion to say that they are not doing it.
Steve Cinami stated that they can litigate, but at least they won’t have other people hostage to that, at that point.
David Pricket stated that there is a fair amount of opposition, they could continue with the current plan, submit the EIE, and it could get voted down repeatedly, and in the meantime Soundview has lost their opportunity.
Andrea Lombard asked at what point an order is non-negotiable.
Andrew Lord stated that if they submit the plan as is, that means that Hawks Nest gets done at the same time. He stated that Hawks Nest is a serious roadblock to fixing the pollution problem along the shoreline. The meeting with the DEEP gave them some flexibility, to move forward with the Soundview, and the 3 beaches, and leave Hawks Nest for another day. He stated that the DEEP would be happy to get 80% of the pollution solved, verses none.
Rich Prendergast stated that the DEEP will fight a lot harder if they try to do all or nothing, because they will make them do all.
Doug Wilkinson stated that that is a logical solution, but, it will cost the town and the residents of Hawks Nest more money.
Chairman Zemba stated that if Hawks Nest happens, and the assessment formula doesn’t work affectively for Hawks Nest users, it will go back on the town.
David Pricket stated that a pump station is going to be built for the chartered beaches, and hopefully Soundview, the residents of Hawks Nest could be educated, that they could either pay an upfront cost now, and reserve capacity at that pump station, at this much per lot, or they can roll the dice, and once that pump station is built, they will be building their own later on, and those costs are to be determined.
Dimitri Tolchinski stated that some residents of Hawks Nest come to every WPCA meeting, but others may not know what is going on. He stated that if the plan is delayed, that it would cost more money, and suggested that Hawks Nest holds a meeting to see what the majority wants. He also stated that the town would not approve additional money if it went to a town meeting.
Chairman Zemba stated that the discussion on additional costs for modification has to happen. He stated that he doesn’t believe that it will be such a cost that it would need to go to town meeting, and it may fit within their budget. He also stated that Hawks Nest would cost significantly more if they phased it in, and that needs to be in the record.
Steve Cinami asked if there was a way for the WPCA, and the consultants, to oversee the private data collection on Hawks Nest, to retain integrity, but be paid for by the people of Hawks Nest, and not the town.
Chairman Zemba stated that they have data in the Health Office, and Hawks Nest owners have engage an engineer, and have that data, he didn’t think there would be any objections to have all those records submitted to the DEEP along with the Hawks Nest records.
Steve Cinami clarified that he meant additionally.
Andrew Lord stated that that would be part of the revised plan, the work that would need to be done. But, they need to attack this in little bites. He stated that the 1st step in the process is to comply with the order, and to do that, they need to get a scope of work on what it would take to revise the plan, the engineers would submit the scope of work to the WPCA and they would say yes or no. If the WPCA says yes, then the engineers move forward with the scope of work, revises the plan to says this is what they propose for monitoring, this is what the DEEP said they are agreeable to, and to make sure they get that in writing. Then they submit the plan, submit the EIE,and address the public comments. He stated that this is a 6 month or more process.
He re-stated, that the small bite that they need now is to get a scope of work to comply with the order, vote on it in January, and move forward from there. He said that they can’t solve all of the problems right now.
Chairman Zemba stated that it won’t happen in January because the scope of work is associated with a cost, and that needs to be approved by the BOS & BOF. Once that is approved, then the WPCA would charge Jay to get that plan modified and sent in. At that point they could come up with a timeline to take that data that John has, along with the data from Hawks Nest, and get that data submitted to DEEP.
Rich Prendergast stated that in a perfect world they would get a volume discount, and everyone would be agreeable, but they don’t have that. He stated that the phased option is the safer of the options that are terrible. If they go all in, then they are locked in, it would go to a town referendum, and there would be a huge opposition and the whole thing would fail. Then, the town would get into a legal battle with DEEP because the State wants the town to do this. He stated that the alternative is to bite off what they think will pass, and in return, the state backs off a bit because at least they are seeing progress.
Andrea Lombard stated that they are doing this because of a threat of legal action, but asks Rich, doesn’t he think that legal action would cost more than sewers. She stated that their job is to look at the information, and they can’t say that there is data on the table right now, that they haven’t seen, but say that it is not important for this decision, but is important for phase 2? She stated that Hawks Nest is putting up opposition, and they are listening to the opposition, and they should just admit that, that it is not based on data or logic.
Steve Cinami asked if she was at the Town Hall Meeting where 130 people showed up, and 100 people voted not to approve paying people that they have incurred expenses to, because they are so against sewers? He stated that was $200,000, not millions.
Andrea asked wouldn’t those same voters vote down Soundview too?
Steve replied no, because they would see that there was discussion that Hawks Nest would
probably support doing Soundview, Soundview supports it, so there is no opposition.
Dimitri Tolchinski stated that there are 2 choices, to either submit the report as is, or have a meeting with Hawks Nest to find out what the majority wants to do.
Rich Prendergast stated that if they are doing a 2-phase approach where they are obligated to do the 1st phase, if they have a referendum that says here is the money that it’s going to cost, and it passes because it’s Soundview, and at the same time do a referendum on the 2nd part, but a separate line item. The town votes yes for Soundview, and no for Hawks Nest now, if later on it costs more money, it was at least given to the town as a legally binding decision, so if someone comes back saying that they cost them more money because they didn’t do it then, then they could point to the vote.
Jay Sheehan suggested sending out a postcard to Hawks Nest regarding sewers, asking if they are interested, and have check boxes for; yes, no, or if they need more information. He stated that gives the WPCA the true level of interest, not just the loud people at the meetings.
Chairman Zemba stated that there is money in the budget to do a mailing like that, if they wanted to. He stated that talking to Hawks Nest is fine, and that he likes the postcard idea, but states that is not going to bear on the decision that they have to make. He stated that if anyone was paying attention for the last 2.5 years, they know where the majority of Hawks Nest stands. He stated, there is opposition, that they have data, and the town has data, and DEEP has data, and they will make the decision, he stated it is not their job to determine whether there is pollution or not. He stated that the EIE is on hold, and the DEEP has told them that they are open to some flexibility, not ready to disregard Hawks Nest, because they believe there is pollution, but they understand that there is
another beach that wants to move along. He stated that they are faced with a simple decision, are they going to agree to submit the plan as is, or are they going to charge Woodard & Curran with coming back with the scope to discuss.
Steve Cinami made a motion to charge Woodard & Curran to come back with a scope for a revised plan, and cost estimate for next month’s meeting.
Andrea Lombard asked to discuss.
Steve Cinami clarified that all the motion does, is give Woodard & Curran direction to come up with a scope of what the revised plan would be, and the cost to do it.
Andrea Lombard asked if they would have a choice at the January meeting to vote on the existing plan, or the revised scope.
Chairman Zemba replied yes, at the January meeting they could motion to accept the scope, and to move forward with that scope, including the cost, they would vote to either move ahead with that modified scope, and if they voted yes, they would then take that dollar amount, and give it to the 1st Selectwoman for approval. If they voted not to do that, they would make another motion to move forward, and submit the plan as is.
Doug Wilkinson asked, to be clear, the request for the revised scope is to separate Hawks Nest from Soundview on an implementation schedule.
Jay Sheehan stated, to modify the implementation schedule.
Jay Sheehan stated that if the motion passes, he will come back with a proposal, the cost, schedule, and the scope, of how the plan will be modified.
Andrew Lord stated that the first step is to decide if they are going to pay x dollars to have Jay change the plan, 2. Have Jay change the plan 3. What does the plan say, and do you want to live with it or not.
David Pricket stated, that DEEP said, that in order to consider the entire project area not moving forward together they would have to be convinced that there are measures in place. Not data to substantiate pollution or need, but data to substantiate either other alternatives or an alternative recommendation plan implementation schedule. He stated that they are not going back on pollution or data.
First Selectwoman Reemsnyder stated that all they are asking is for Jay to go back and get the scope of work, and identify what is being recommended in order to modify that plan.
Andrea Lombard asked what the cost would be for Jay to come up with a scope of work, to modify the plan.
Jay Sheehan stated that there would be no charge for the proposal.
Chairman Zemba stated that if the majority of the WPCA votes no on the motion, that it is the intention of the WPCA to submit the EIE as is for the 2 beaches, or, the WPCA would have to motion to continue pausing the EIE, that would then put them out of compliance. He stated that if you vote yes, Jay will come back with an estimate, and more information.
Dimitri Tolchinski stated that he believes it would be a waste of time and money.
Andrew Lord stated that it wouldn’t cost any more to get a proposal from Jay.
Bonnie Reemsnyder stated that just because something was turned down at a town meeting doesn’t mean that you don’t go back. You find out what was not received well. She stated that she believes that this is the message they are getting from people, and doesn’t think that it costs them anything to ask the engineers to come back with a proposal, explain it in depth, and include the sanitarian. She stated that it means that they are listening, and moving forward, and it doesn’t risk being out of compliance and dealing with fines from the state.
Doug Wilkinson stated that there is value in getting more data on Hawks Nest, he stated that he believes that it is possible that there are areas in Hawks Nest that do not need to be sewered, and getting more data will determine that.
Rob McCarthy stated that it is not just generating data, but also evaluating the data.
Andrew Lord stated that timing and delay are inevitable, that DEEP has shown flexibility to work with the WPCA on complying with the order, they understand that a lot needs to be done, and it is going to take time. He outlined how to move forward; you get a proposal and scope of work, send DEEP an email tomorrow that says this is the action that the WPCA took last night, they voted to move forward on the scope of work, they will evaluate at the January meeting, and let you know what happens after that meeting on how they are going to proceed and on what schedule.
Chairman Zemba called for a motion, all of those in favor of directing Woodard and Curran to come back in January with a scope of work and cost estimate, on a modified plan implementation, signify by raising your hand. 6 in favor, 2 opposed. Motion Passed.
Chairman Zemba asked Jay to come back in January with a plan modification scope with as much detail as possible with a specific cost, if they vote to accept that then they would pass that cost on to the First Selectwoman to move on to the BOS and BOF. He asked Dave to meet with the sanitarian to discuss what data the town has in its possession, and give an update in January. He asked Andrew to draft that email to the DEEP stating that they have moved forward in the process to evaluate the scope and get something to the 1st selectwoman.
Kurt stated essentially you just heard the chairman’s report; it was the charge to Jay and Dave. He stated that there is no rush because New London, East Lyme, and Waterford are in no hurry to cut a deal with anybody, and without their inclusion, there is nothing that is going to happen, and they do want to work with the town, and not individual chartered beaches.
Updated under #5
- Old Business – Legal and Engineering Invoices
Chairman Zemba stated that there is an invoice from David Prickett for $892.50 for engineering work from 11/11 – 12/8. He also stated that there were other outstanding invoices that have been recently addressed. He asked Andrew Lord if he has received payment for this fiscal year’s invoices.
Andrew Lord replied that he has received payment for all of the invoices that have been sent.
Bonnie Reemsnyder stated that there was some sort of glitch with David’s outstanding invoices, but they have been processed, and she offered apologies.
Chairman Zemba asked where they are with the invoices from Dave & Andrew from last fiscal year?
Bonnie replied that she is trying to address that with the BOF, that they are waiting on the final report from the attorney to address that.
Chairman Zemba called for a motion to approve the invoice for $892.50. The motion was moved by Doug Wilkinson, seconded by Andrea Lombard to approve the invoice from Dave Pricket, dated December 8th, totaling $892.50. Motion passed unanimously.
- New Business – Preliminary Budget Proposal FY 16-17
Chairman Zemba stated that in the remaining budget they have $78,414, minus the $892.50 that was just approved, leaving $77,521 in the budget. He stated that they received a request for the WPCA budget. He stated that if there was additional data testing, or work for the DEEP, that it needs to be put into the proposed budget. He stated that he added $18,000 for a minimal test hole for the Hawks Nest area, as a placeholder in the budget. He estimated what they would use in wastewater funds for the next fiscal year, he stated that they are not going to vote on it, and essentially it is just a placeholder, and they are going to do a revision in January.
Andrea Lombard asked, in light of tonight’s discussion, if it was reasonable.
Kurt replied that it is probably overstated, from the data side.
David Pricket stated that it appears to be conservative relative to Jay’s potential cost to update the plan, if during execution; David thinks that those costs would go back to BOS & BOF to approve as a separate capital.
Bonnie and Kurt both agreed
David advised to not put a number in today.
Kurt stated that Clerk number, office supplies, postage, legal counsel, advertisings, printing, misc/other, are all the same as last year. He stated that wastewater management was $25,000, he made $50,000 not knowing what the DEEP will do with the plan being open, and the consultant fee is usually $12,000 he is asking for $30,000 to deal with testing.
First Selectwoman Reemsnyder overviewed that the are going to develop the implementation plan, and submit it, they agree, submit the EIE, have the green light to move forward, she asked does any cost associated with overseeing/reviewing continuing to look at Hawks Nest, does that become part of the bonding, so that it is not actually in the WPCA budget by the town? She stated, just because we say it in the plan that we submit doesn’t mean that they have to immediately start that.
David Prickett replied that in theory it would be eligible for a planning grant which is 55%.
Chairman Zemba stated that if the WPCA decides to test something, then that comes out of their budget, if it involves DEEP’s plan of implementation, he believes that is capital project, that they have to start early before the bond, go to the BOF and get the money for that. If it is major, maybe it waits until bond.
Kurt Zemba stated Joe Carpentino joined them an hour ago.
Public Comment
James Birge, 3 Hemlock Circle
Stated that he is a proponent to do what is right, and to protect human health and the environment. He stated that data from 1998-2012 shows that there is pollution in Hawks Nest. He stated that he does not want to delay, that he wants to do what is right, and minimize the cost to the town and the residents of Hawks Nest.
Sandy Garvin, Hawks Nest Beach
Sandy stated that no-one wants to answer the question, of the degree of pollution is in Hawks Nest. She questioned who is to say there is a pollution problem, if it is not defined? She stated that they hired their own engineers, to do their own test holes that had different results from than the town’s data. She asked why they are being mandated sewers, if they can’t define if it is a small problem, or a big problem. She suggested that there may be a better solution other than sewers, in some areas. She stated that she wanted to meet with the board, but was denied, and told that they are not collecting data anymore, and believes that that is a great disservice to the people that are going to have to pay the biggest part of
the project, to not be included in the conversation. She also recommended her engineer Dave Potts.
James Birge, 3 Hemlock Circle
Replied to Sandy that the people opposing sewers are thinking about dollars, not public health. He stated that 6 monitoring wells in Hawks Nest that have been sampled, and shows values above the legal limit of bacteria.
Rob Breen, Soundview Beach Association
Thanks the board for doing their due diligence.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn was made by Rich Prendergast, seconded by Doug Wilkinson.
Motion passed unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 9:28pm
Minutes submitted by:
Donna Glaras
12/11/15
| 
