MINUTES
CONSERVATION COMMISSION/
INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING
Continuation of the Public Hearing=
from
October 11, 2007
THURSDAY,
NOVEMBER 15, 2007
APPLICATION #616 - BAILIE COMAPNY<= o:p>
Members Present: &nbs=
p; Mr. Jim Zawadzki, Chai=
rman
=
&nb=
sp; =
Mr.
Glen Dupliese
=
&nb=
sp; =
Mr.
Tony DiBona
=
&nb=
sp; =
Mr.
Joe Polletta
=
&nb=
sp; =
Mr.
Ed Undercuffler
=
&nb=
sp; =
Memb=
ers
Absent: =
Mr. Donato Orsini, Vice Chairman
=
&nb=
sp; =
Mr.
Tom Murphy, Secretary
Alternates Present: =
; Ms.
Denise Russ
=
; &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp;
Alternates Absent: =
; Mr.
Scott Marotta
=
&nb=
sp; =
Others Present: &n=
bsp; =
; Mr. Chuck Berger, Town
Engineer =
;
=
&nb=
sp; =
Mr.
Chris Allan from Land Tech Consultants, Inc.
1. =
Call
Meeting To Order
Mr. Zawadzki, Chairman, Called the Public Hearing to Order at about 9:10 p.m. <= o:p>
2. &nb=
sp; Roll
Call
Mr.
Zawadzki, Chairman, executed the Roll Call.
3. &n=
bsp; Hearing
of Cases
=
D. Continuation of the Public Hearing from October =
11,
2007 -Application #616 of the Bailie Company to conduct regulated activities
associated with the restoration of a disturbed site located at
The Public Hearing must be closed by November 15=
, 2007
unless applicant grants an extension of time.
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#616 – BAILIE COMPANY
NOVEMBER=
15,
2007
Page 2
Discussion:
Anthony Yorio, Attorney on beha=
lf of
The Bailie Company
Mr. Yorio: I believe we’re going to give a brief ove=
rview
of the application and the restoration plan that was previously presented at
the last wetland meeting. I have with me tonight licensed engineer Curtis J=
ones
and Mark Gotliev that are environmental scientists that will explain some of
the finer points of the plan that may need to be re-iterated.
Mr. Zawadzki: Here are two letters from catalyst and two from=
Fuss
and O’Neil.
Mr. Berger: Going back to the October 25 letter from Fuss a=
nd
O’Neil, this was the letter presented at the last joint meeting of wh=
ich
there was not a quorum of the wetlands commission but there was a quorum of=
the
Planning and Zoning. I believe it was handed out to who ever was there. All=
the
wetland commission members tonight have another copy of that October 25, 20=
07
letter. Then on November 12th, Catalyst responded to the October=
25th
letter. There were two separate letters both dated November 12th=
and
then Fuss and O’Neil’s letter dated November 14th.
Curtis Jones, Civil
Mr. Jones: Thanks
Mr. Zawadzki: Curt, I’m sorry just a second, I want to =
insert
a comment here that we try to keep this on the wetlands impact phase of this
application which is #616. That’s what we’re talking about here=
.
Mr. Jones: Yes, so specifically I believe the wetland acti=
vities
involve restoring disturbed areas within 50 feet of the river and within th=
at
stream encroachment line. As part of the plans and detailed on the plans, we
are proposing to use native sand and gravel found on the site, put it in th=
ose
area, compact it back up and bring it back up to natural grades. The other
activities on the site perhaps, seem to
Mark Gotliev, Catalyst Environm=
ental
Consulting
Mr. Gotliev: I’m a licensed environmental professional=
with
catalyst Environmental Consulting. On the environmental side, as the activi=
ties
relate to the area that’s under regulated wetlands, there will basica=
lly
be materials excavated and that area is going to be
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#616 – BAILIE COMPANY
NOVEMBER=
15,
2007
Page 3
put back together. We’ve had several back =
and
forth with Fuss and O’Neil with regard to various technical aspects. =
What
type of testing is appropriate, testing frequency and supervision? The one
outstanding issue at this point on the technical side and hasn’t been
resolved is the need for groundwater study before the work starts. We’=
;d
prefer not to do it obviously. Fuss has provided some reasons why it may be
advisable to do that work. Really that is the one outstanding issue that we
have at this point. We had proposed that if the material comes out as
reprocessed materials tested and if the testing shows that there is potenti=
al
to impact the groundwater from this material then we would proceed with the
groundwater study to demonstrate there is no impact or to monitor the impac=
t as
it decreases if there is any. Site difference of approach in that Fuss and
O’Neil is viewing the groundwater study to give you more of the blank=
et
view of groundwater conditions at the site as they relate to other stuff th=
at
might be buried there other than the concrete. We did do test pits in all t=
he
areas where the planning and zoning people were concerned that stuff had be=
en
buried. So other than resolving if the study is going to occur or not, on t=
he
technical side I think everyone is on the same page at this point.
Mr. Zawadzki: I don’t know about being on the same page=
but
just looking at this item here I just received from your company and you sa=
y we
are aware of the permit requirements and hope to get approvals at the Novem=
ber
15th joint meeting of Wetlands and Planning and Zoning. But you
apparently weren’t too aware of it because number 1 this is not a joi=
nt
meeting and number 2 we can’t give you an approval tonight. The best =
we
can do is close the public hearing but I’m not even sure we’re
going to do that in light of the fact that we’ve gotten so much more =
new
information in the last 10 minutes.
Mr. Gotliev: That particular item pertains to one of the thi=
ngs
developed for this project was a list of permits that was required.
Mr. Zawadzki: Yes I understand that.
Mr. Gotliev: It’s the acknowledgement that we are awar=
e of
that both permits from planning and zoning and wetlands are required.
Mr. Zawadzki: Yes I’m just pointing out that it’s=
not
going to happen tonight.
Mr. Dupliese: I’m not sure I’m in agreement. I th=
ink we
should have some test wells on this property. I think the test wells will <=
st1:State
w:st=3D"on">
Mr. Gotliev: We haven’t seen any evidence of concrete
emplacement below the water table in the 17 test pits that were dug. All of
them the concrete ran out and native materials before the water table was
encountered.
Mr. Dupliese: When we were there in the summer during I think=
in
August, and we were
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#616 – BAILIE COMPANY
NOVEMBER=
15,
2007
Page 4
on that site and there was one open pit. There w=
as
concrete right next to it and it hadn’t rained in two weeks but there=
was
water on the bottom of the pit. There was definitely groundwater at that po=
int
it hadn’t rained. So I would say it was at the water table at that po=
int.
It’s not accounting for the ones that had been buried because we
couldn’t see those but that one that was wide open there definitely w=
as
water.
Mr. Gotliev: I wasn’t there at that point.
Mr. Dupliese: I’m saying at that point it definitely wa=
s in
the water table, so I would like to see the test wells put in and I’d
like to see some groundwater sampling especially during a high flow season.=
I
don’t know what’s going to happen this time of year but definit=
ely
in the spring.
Mr. Gotliev: A point that needs to be made and maybe is being
missed is that the testing schedule is proposed for the concrete and asses =
the
mobility of any contaminants that are associated with that concrete. The
Mr. Polletta: So you’re saying you can’t do the t=
est
until everything is removed, am I right?
Mr. Gotliev: As we proposed, the material will be tested aft=
er it
is processed before it’s used elsewhere on site. Our letter of October
19, 2007 to Fuss and O’Neil proposes how the sampling is going to be
done.
Mr. Polletta: I read that but you will not be able to test th=
is
until everything is removed out of the site.
Mr. Gotliev: Right, after it’s processed and there wil=
l be
sampling if other materials shows in the bottom of the hole sampling of the
surface that is left after the concrete comes out.
Mr. Dupliese: I’m just concerned that if there are chem=
icals
in the concrete that just pulling them out of the hole right now while
they’re in the water, I’d like to know if there is anything in =
the
concrete before we start moving it on site because if there is something in=
it
I don’t want to pick it up from one spot and move it over and contami=
nate
another
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#616 – BAILIE COMPANY
NOVEMBER=
15,
2007
Page 5
spot to find out that we did contaminate it. So I
think before we start moving it would be a great
Mr. Gotliev: I’m not sure I agree with you that we have
water flowing through the concrete at least laterally. Certainly it gets
rainfall.
Mr. Dupliese: It definitely gets rainfall I’ll agree wi=
th you
there, whether or not there is water flowing through it depends on how high=
the
water table is.
Mr. Gotliev: Right, the days that we were there for the test=
pits
they were out of the groundwater.
Mr. Dupliese: I will agree with you there that is possible, b=
ut I
think if we test the groundwater below the concrete at this point with the =
rain
that’s going through the concrete now, I think that will be a good
Mr. Gotliev: Well regardless of what’s in it, it has to=
come
out.
Mr. Dupliese: but taking it out of the ground here and puttin=
g it
over there I think is a bad move if it is contaminated, if it isn’t t=
hen
I agree it can be processed.
Mr. Gotliev: But if it’s contaminated it has to leave
anyway. Let’s say we have some contaminated concrete, the processing =
is
not going to spread the contamination around any
Mr. Dupliese: I disagree. I think the test pits would give us=
a
good indication of what’s there and how to treat it.
Mr. Gotliev: Well the test pits were done.
Mr. Dupliese: Yes the test pits were done but we….
Mr. Gotliev: There was no analytical work done.
Mr. Dupliese: I want to test the groundwater underneath it ri=
ght
now.
Mr. Gotliev: So you’re saying test the groundwater
versus…
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#616 – BAILIE COMPANY
NOVEMBER=
15,
2007
Page 6
Mr. Dupliese: Let’s put some holes in the ground and le=
ts
take some samples of the groundwater and see the down gradient of the concr=
ete
that’s in the ground and let’s see whether or not there is anyt=
hing
flowing through. If there is nothing there after 2
Mr. Zawadzki: It’s been longer than that.
Mr. Dupliese: I understand. At least if there is something mo=
ving
through it we’d see it.
Mr. Gotliev: Groundwater testing would be done within a week=
or
two after monitoring wells are installed. It would be quick.
Mr. Dupliese: But it’s been there 6 to 8
Mr. Yorio: The problem that we see with doing groundwater
testing is that the testing itself is duplicative. If you’re doing
groundwater testing and testing the concrete, we’re looking for the s=
ame
materials just in a different place. So if we’re going to do ground w=
ater
testing and monitoring I’d ask the commission to forgo any testing of=
the
concrete once it’s removed. I think the applicant would concede to
groundwater testing if he didn’t have to conduct testing on the concr=
ete
itself once it’s processed.
Mr. Dupliese: I don’t agree.
Mr. Yorio: Well then you’re calling for a test that&=
#8217;s
repetitive.
Mr. Dupliese: Well you’re saying duplicative but I
don’t agree with that. I think that if we have groundwater monitoring
down gradient of the material that was put in the ground and that will give=
us
one result. If that comes up clean then we feel a lot better about whatR=
17;s
in the ground because it’s been there for 6
Mr. Yorio: But in your analysis if your saying that you are
operating under the assumption that if there is contaminants in the concrete
and has rainfall going over it with intrusion into the water table of any
contaminants from the concrete and you’re going to find it in the
groundwater, that’s the operating assumption, and when you do that and
test the groundwater and it is negative, it is a duplicative test to then t=
urn
around and test the processed concrete. If the operating assumption for that
test is that any contaminants in the concrete is in the ground water.
We’re saying if you allow us to test the concrete in the aliquots tha=
t it’s
removed from the rubble pile, we’re not talking about taking all the
concrete and moving it to another part of the site, processing that entire =
mass
and then testing certain samples. We’re talking about bringing over
aliquots, I think it’s 1000 ton aliquots from the rubble pile. ItR=
17;s
going to be processed and tested in those aliquots. There
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#616 – BAILIE COMPANY
NOVEMBER=
15,
2007
Page 7
are going to be 4 samples from the 1000 ton aliq=
uot and
that will show whether or not there is any contaminants in the concrete. We
think this is a better plan because if there are any contaminants in the
concrete after that 1000 ton processing and testing, you’ll find it t=
here
at that point. Then we conduct
Mr. Dupliese: I don’t agree. Just because we put the
groundwater wells in there doesn’t mean we’ll find it. It might=
be
the flow that’s coming across this way, but I’m hoping that we =
put
a couple of wells downgraded and if we find something, we know that we have=
the
problem, and if we don’t at least it’s an
Mr. Yorio: What different way would you propose at that po=
int?
It has to be removed one way or another.
Mr. Dupliese: There are many chemicals and a lot of different
things that can go into the concrete and lechate out of the concrete that a=
re
heavier than water.
Mr. Yorio: But they are all things that would turn up if t=
he
concrete itself was tested. So what we’re saying is allow us to remove
1000 tons at a time and test it. If it’s there than we do ground water
monitoring. If it’s not in the concrete it’s not in the groundw=
ater
right? I mean you have to conceive that point. If it’s not in the
concrete it’s not in the groundwater.
Mr. Dupliese: That’s possible.
Mr. Yorio:
Mr. Dupliese: Yes but you’re just making the assumption=
now
that it’s only concrete that’s in the ground and I’m not
agreeing to that. I’m not agreeing that he has put only concrete in t=
he
holes.
Mr. Yorio: Ok but if you listen to the first part of what =
Mr.
Gotliev had said, when the concrete is removed the surface soil underneath =
the
concrete would be analyzed. It would be something that just by looking at it
you can tell. In the 17 test pits that they dug there was always a
Mr. Dupliese: Ok, but it’s not just concrete that they
buried. They’ve buried asphalt on the site. Is that correct?
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#616 – BAILIE COMPANY
NOVEMBER=
15,
2007
Page 8
Mr. Yorio: Those were materials that were pre-existing. Th=
ere
was one test pit that clearly had decayed organic material that was at least
decades old. And forgive me I don’t believe you were present at the l=
ast
meeting when we went through the satellite photos to show how the topography
has changed there through the last 50 or so years demonstrating that there =
was
significant site disturbance there including a
Mr. Polletta: How long will it take to test 1000 tons of mate=
rial?
Mr. Gotliev: Between the time it’s sampled and when th=
e lab
results come in, less than a week. Some of the results, the screening for v=
olatiles
would be instantaneous. That’s done with the screening instrument that
the sampling protocol as it’s proposed if there is elevated readings
above ambient for volatiles, then it gets sampled. So if there is high leve=
l of
volatiles, which is the big mobility concern like solvents or gasoline and
you’ll get a pretty good
Ms. Russ: I know we’ve been dealing with this for <=
st1:State
w:st=3D"on">months and I know it was Glen who wanted this off t=
he
property immediately like 6
Mr. Gotliev: It sits on plastic when it’s done, goes i=
nto
the crusher machine, it’s stock piled, and then the lab results come =
in
and depending on what the lab results look like determine the fate of the g=
iven
pile.
Ms. Russ: So the concrete would site on plastic for a week
until the results come back?
Mr. Gotliev: Right.
Ms. Russ: Due to the process and everything else and wint=
er
coming I know we want to decide ASAP. I would go along with just processing=
the
concrete just to get this project underway before winter comes.
&=
nbsp;
Mr. Zawadzki: yes I kind of lean that way myself. Who is here=
from
Fuss and O’Neil? Ok would you care to comment on this? You’re o=
ur
technical back up on this as far as advising the commission so how do you f=
eel
about this.
Phil Forzley, Fuss and O’=
Neil
Mr. Forzley: I don’t have an issue at all =
with
processing the concrete before putting groundwater monitoring wells. I
don’t think it matters whether we test the concrete first, if they cr=
ush
it first and process it, I don’t think it’s going to have a
negative impact at all.
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#616 – BAILIE COMPANY
NOVEMBER=
15,
2007
Page 9
Mr. Zawadzki: Then I think we should let the applicant do wha=
t he
intended to do and then we’ll follow up on the results.
Ms. Russ: Will we be voting on this tonight?
Mr. Zawadzki: No, again we need an extension on this because&=
#8230;
Ms. Russ: So they can’t start doing anything with t=
he
concrete?
Mr. Zawadzki: They can start working on the concrete, sure. A=
ll
we’re getting an extension on is the public hearing because we have t=
oo
much new information here that we need to keep the public hearing open.
Mr. Dupliese: You’re saying they can go in and start wo=
rking?
Are we giving them permission to do anything on the site yet?
Mr. Zawadzki: Yes I thought we already had as far as moving s=
tuff
and getting it out of there.
Mr. Yorio: Mr. Chairman, as a point of order I don’t
believe so. That’s part of what I’d like to tidy up on the regu=
lar
meeting agenda. It still appears to show a rule to show a cause and I think
where we left off at the first rule to show cause hearing was a relocation =
of
wetland approval. So we shouldn’t even really be at a rule to show ca=
use,
we’re a new applicant. So we don’t have any approval to do anyt=
hing
at this point. Although we’d be
Mr. Zawadzki: Yes I recognize that but we’re stuck too
because if we close the public hearing we cant get any new information and
there are too many questions still on the table here and I don’t want=
to
slam the door on that. How do you feel
Mr. Berger: I haven’t really done much of a review wi=
th
this given that we’ve had Fuss and O’Neil doing our work and I =
rely
on their technical advice.
Mr. Polletta: If we do the first 1000 tons and once they find=
out
there is nothing over there, I mean we’re in the winter. We depend on
you.
Mr. Zawadzki: But to do that they would need the permit.
Mr. Forzley: I’d like to take a step back. I went thro=
ugh a
lot of information at the last meeting that you guys didn’t have the
benefit of and what it really is you have a lot of
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#616 – BAILIE COMPANY
NOVEMBER=
15,
2007
Page 10
paper in front of you. But we have an initial se=
t of
plans form Civil One, we reviewed them, called Civil One, and said we’=
;re
going to write a letter, here are our concerns. They said why don’t we
come in and meet. They came in and met, addressed all of our concerns befor=
e we
wrote the letter. We wanted to get a letter on the record that expressed our
concerns from plans that you had in your file because they were already
submitted. By the time we came to the meeting all the concerns were address=
ed
because we talked about it in our office. What I reported at the last meeti=
ng
was that we went through the concerns one by one but it all says is that th=
ey
addressed all of our concerns. That’s what our October 25, 2007 letter
and I went through it one by one and I’d be glad to do it again
explaining how the revised plans addressed all the comments. As we discussed
last time and we’re discussing tonight the only outstanding issue is
whether ground water monitoring is necessary and that’s what our Nove=
mber
14 letter discusses that you have.
Mr. Dupliese: Ok then we’ll take a step back too. If we=
were to
agree to this testing of 1000 tons of the (inaudible) and since there is de=
bate
on how much material they’re actually using in the ground, 1000 tons =
is
really not a lot of material. It’s a sizable pile, but not a lot. The=
re
is a lot of 1000 tons in there. There are 80 or 90 thousand tons of materia=
l in
the pile depending on how many you come up with. I’m not really sure =
on
the number at this point.
Emily Jones, Civil One
Mrs. Jones: The total amount of concrete rubble that we est=
imated
was about 15,000 cubic yards, so that’s less than 25,000 tons.
Mr. Dupliese: Ok so using that number then, how long is it go=
ing to
take to make these piles? Will it take 1 or 2 or 5 weeks?
Mr. Yorio: What we initially had planned was about a thous=
and
tons per day. That’s awfully ambitious but that’s what we’=
;re
hoping to reach is that goal. So basically we’re talking about a 30 d=
ay
process, give or take 2 week.
Mr. Dupliese: Ok so then in 2 weeks we’d start getting
results back, around 4 test results per day if you started today, 2 weeks f=
orm
now we’d be getting the test results or in a week. So by then youR=
17;d
be on your 7th day and 7th pile.
Mr. Yorio: Roughly yes but I don’t think anybody is
working Saturday and Sunday but we’d like to if we had approval.
Mr. Dupliese: At this point Fuss and O’Neil will be doi=
ng the
observation of all the excavation and the testing correct?
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#616 – BAILIE COMPANY
NOVEMBER=
15,
2007
Page 11
Mr. Yorio: Right and the plan is generally, and this is pa=
rt of
the dialogue we will have with Fuss and O’Neil, they will be out ther=
e on
the daily checking the pile and checking the soil that’s underneath i=
t.
Mr. Dupliese: Now does Fuss and O’Neil go in and actual=
ly
take the results, take out that chunk of concrete, put it in the jar and se=
nd
it out to the lab?
Mr. Yorio: I think they are going to observe whatever it is
being collected.
Mr. Dupliese: Who is doing the collections, is it an
Mr. Gotliev: No it will be myself or a representative from my
company going out to collect the samples for analysis.
Mr. Dupliese: Which lab will you be using?
Mr. Gotliev: At this point either CET or York, both based in=
Mr. Dupliese: Is it possible to have Fuss and O’Neil who
represent us take the test and give the chain of command to the testing lab=
.
Mr. Yorio: I don’t have an issue with that.
Mr. Gotliev: That’s certainly possible. I would say th=
e key
thing you want on this is that a licensed environmental professional is
managing the collection and data interpretation.
Mr. Dupliese: Ok and if we gave you permission to do this
what’s your anticipated start date, if we gave you permission today? =
Mr. Gotliev: It’s still short of planning and zoning a=
pproval
and short of stream channel encroachment line permit from the state. I think
the storm water permit is in.
Mr. Dupliese: What do you anticipate for that permit?
Mr. Jones: The general storm water permit has been in plac=
e for
two weeks now and I’m sorry I can’t give you an estimate for the
stream encroachment permit.
Mr. Dupliese: In the past, how long does it take?
Mr. Jones: I’d be very hesitant to guess but it̵=
7;s
necessary. We’d certainly try to expedite that procedure just as
we’re trying to expedite all these procedures.
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#616 – BAILIE COMPANY
NOVEMBER=
15,
2007
Page 12
Mr. Zawadzki: Ok my feeling is that if Fuss and O’Neil =
is
happy with it then we should go ahead…
Mr. Pilicy: It’s been suggested that because there is=
a new
application pending following a verification of the prior permit that the c=
ease
and desist hearing is not needed. It’s my opinion that the cease and
desist order remains as a separate matter before your commission for a coup=
le
of reason. Even if everything else was resolved the commission has to final=
ize
what the commission may seek by way of penalties for the violations and may
take into account the ultimate decision that you make with respect to the
magnitude of the violations. For immediate purposes the commission in my
opinion would have the discretion to under the cease and desist item on your
agenda, allow the property owner to begin the process of removing the concr=
ete
from the pits and begin the testing. That could be done as a part of the ce=
ase
and desist proceeding. Without advancing in part your ultimate decision on =
the
new application for a new permit. If you would do that you could act on that
later on the agenda when you get to the show cause hearing and leave the pu=
blic
hearing open on the application for the new permit. That would still give t=
he
commission the final say at a later date on whether or not the soil or grou=
nd
water testing will be required in addition to the concrete testing. But any
action by this agency to allow the concrete activity to begin would be
conditioned upon, or understood, that the property owner does need other
permits from other agencies before actually beginning including our own
planning and zoning commission. It is possible and I think it’s neede=
d to
keep the show cause hearing as a separate agenda item and you could take
partial action and still keep the public hearing open on the new applicatio=
n.
Mr. Zawadzki: Does the applicant have any other comments subj=
ect to
the public hearing presentation.
Mr. Yorio: No we don’t, thank you.
Mr. Zawadzki: Anyone else from the public wish to speak?
David Minnich,
Mr. Minnich: I am the Chairman of the Planning and Zoning
Commission for the record. I’m in deed intrigued at this process as we
have gotten it and I hope that there is some action going to be taken tonig=
ht.
We have all worked hard, met many times on this matter and our goal always =
was
to get the applicant, in this case The Bailie Company, to remove what should
not have been there and to also restore the site so that it was like it was
before. We’ve worked to get to that endeavor and I see that we are ve=
ry
close to doing that. There is some process to doing that and there is some =
on
the Planning and Zoning end of it and obviously some process for you. But if
we’re going to wait until the spring, or wait until later to do this =
it
is just going to make the problem worse and I ask you to think for yourself,
have you then participated in whatever is in the concrete by the act of mak=
ing
actions quicker. I do want to make the point that this groundwater testing
issues really has gotten, I think, a little bazaar from my point of view.
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#616 – BAILIE COMPANY
NOVEMBER=
15,
2007
Page 13
have
any contaminants, the soil under he concrete does not have any contaminants,
and we have done the goal that we have attempted to do which is remove the
concrete from there and remove the contaminants and make sue the soil is not
contaminated. All this other testing, we’ve defined and spent careful
time and had our own consultants, the 3rd
party
consultants also agree. We’ve defined the area to which this remediat=
ion
order is to be applied to. We don’t have a remediation order for the
entire property. We only have a remediation order for what they put there. =
So
then to say you’re going to want to put a well or testing place elsew=
here
on the property, how will you know it came from the area which we have
identified which is that concrete and those areas and those test pits? You
don’t know. Where you would know most definitely is if you get it from
the actual soil that you’re testing from the concrete as well as the =
soil
underneath. As you can tell from my tone I’m a little frustrated that=
we
have been at this for so long and I hope we can move forward so that we as a
planning and zoning commission can not move forward as you know until you m=
ove
forward. We hope that will occur tonight, thank you.
Mr. Yorio: Mr. Commissioner, just to follow up on that I t=
hink
it’s the applicant’s preference that you act on the application
rather than try to modify the cease and desist order to allow activity to r=
espect
to the concrete. If we have wetland approval we can get a zoning approval
following that. So I think that this is a much cleaner process if we go by
application to application.
Mr. Dupliese: I’m not sure if that’s what you adv=
ised
Mr. Pilicy. I think you advised the opposite.
Mr. Undercuffler: I don’t think so. He said that’s an
option.
Mr. Pilicy: I advised that you have choices. That if you=
217;re
not comfortable or prepared to approve the new application tonight, you can
still allow some level of activity under the cease and desist item on your
agenda. What you have to wrestle with is the consultant to your agency your
agency has recommended both on October 25 and again in yesterday’s le=
tter
that there be some ground water testing as part of this process. You have h=
ad
some arguments and testimony that it might not be needed. The ultimate deci=
sion
rests with your agency. But I think that’s probably the biggest if not
the only outstanding issue as far as your agency stands. What I suggested is
that you have choices.
Mr. Undercuffler: I think we should close the hearing and approve=
the
application as they request. I see no reason for
Mr. Polletta: I agree with you I think that we waited long en=
ough
and if we don’t do anything, once the winter comes it’s going to
get colder and it’ll make things even worse than before.
Mr. Undercuffler: I agree with that, but I think just the logic o=
f if
you test the concrete and the concrete is clean, that should solve it.
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#616 – BAILIE COMPANY
NOVEMBER=
15,
2007
Page 14
Mr. Dupliese: Yes but if we give them the approval on the new
application does that remove, and pardon my ignorance here, but does that
remove the
Mr. Pilicy: It would be my opinion that the cease and desist
remains a separate item on your agenda until you decide it goes away and pa=
rt
of it going away is approval of the new application, but there is another p=
art
to it, whether or not you’re going to seek additional penalties and t=
here
still escrowing costs that the town has incurred and continues to occur tha=
t at
a minimum in my opinion ought to be recovered from the property owner. The cease and desist remains open =
and
you may be able to defer to the cease and desist portion of these proceedin=
gs
whether or not you’re going to require additional testing. But any
approval could be conditioned upon additional testing as may be needed based
upon the initial testing. The point is you can still condition any approval=
or
you can condition any activity that you allow if you allow it in part on
whatever level of testing you think you’re going to need but that can=
be
cumulative testing. In other words the initial testing could be done and if=
the
results of that testing are presented back to this agency and you’re =
then
satisfied based on that testing that no additional testing is required and =
that
would be the end of it. If you’re not satisfied because the test resu=
lts
indicate there may be other bad things to find, that you can require additi=
onal
testing. I think you can draft a conditional approval with different levels=
of
testing depending on what is found in the early testing.
Mr. Dupliese: So if we draft that approval I’m not read=
y to
make that recommendation tonight. Does somebody want to make that motion wi=
th
all of those conditions that he just stated that’s fine but if not,
I’d prefer that he draft that statement.
Mr. Polletta: Can we make the motion subject to the town atto=
rney motion
drafted? But the bottom line is that we have to make sure the cease and des=
ist
remains open.
Mr. Dupliese: We have to make sure the cease and desist remai=
ns.
Mr. Undercuffler: Well the first step would be to close the heari=
ng and
then when we get to the regular part of the meeting is when we would vote on
the application itself, right? Isn’t that the way it would work?
Mr. Pilicy: If the commission would like I could spend some=
time
between now and when this item appears on the regular agenda drafting some
language for a conditional approval. That way you can close the public hear=
ing
and continue with other business and when you get to this item again we may
have something.
Mr. Zawadzki: Is there any other comments?
Mr. Dupliese: I move we close the public hearing on applicati=
on
#616.
Ms. Russ: Second.
PUBLIC H=
EARING
APPLICAT=
ION
#616 – BAILIE COMPANY
NOVEMBER=
15,
2007
Page 15
Mr. Zawadzki: All in favor?
Everyone: I
Mr. Zawadzki: Opposed?
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; NONE
MOTION: &nbs=
p; (Mr.
Dupliese, sec. Ms. Russ) to close t=
he
public hearing for Application #616 of the Bailie Company to conduct regula=
ted
activities associated with the restoration of a disturbed site located at <=
st1:address
w:st=3D"on">
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
Public Hearing Clos=
ed at about
9:55.M. (No time given).
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Zawadzki, Chairman
Conservation Commission
Inland/Wetland Agency
&=
nbsp; __________________________________
&=
nbsp; Jennifer
Guerrera,
Minutes Secretary
.