COLCHESTER PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
August 20, 2019
PRESENT: Richard Paquette, Rebecca Arnold, Sarita Austin, Mark Tarinelli, and Prinsha Neupane
ABSENT: Robert Scheck and Nic Longo
OTHERS: Sarah Hadd, Director of Planning & Zoning and Sean Cannon, Planning & Zoning Coordinator
S. Hadd provided a recap of the Commission’s process and introduced Craig Heindel of Waite Heindel that evaluated the Town’s Bayside Hazelett property for the possibility of a community system. C. Heindel gave a presentation noting that the property could possibly support 100,000 to 120,000 gallons per day of wastewater treatment. He reviewed what the regulations were around indirect discharge in Vermont and three evaluations that would be required: 1) application area, 2) vertical room under the site for the induced groundwater mound (maintain 3 ft. min. unsaturated zone), and 3) proof of compliance with the aquatic permitting criteria with two nutrients of nitrogen and phosphorus. A visual of how a disposal field could be fit on the Bayside Hazelett property was shown with two beds meeting the 200% capacity requirement of the State occupying the majority of the site. Drip irrigation versus traditional leach fields were reviewed with tree removal necessary for both but with larger trees having the possibility of remaining for drip irrigation. He stated that there appeared to be room for area and vertical room. C. Heindel stated that with tertiary treatment he believed the aquatic requirements could be met. Phosphorus can stick to the sands however nitrogen was a bit more problematic. Measurements are taken in the adjacent water body and need separation which is why the fields were initially located in the middle of the site and away from the Lake. A twenty fold reduction in phosphorus was required whereas nitrogen was only five times. Spray irrigation is effective but not recommended in heavily settled area such as the Bay. A pilot project with the application of tertiary treated wastewater to the site would help analyze the site’s ability to treat phosphorus and nitrogen. Even if flows were reduced to less than 50,000 gallons per day, secondary treatment would be required which is still expensive and then there is a concern about phosphorus loading into the lake. The stability of the slope of the site along the lake would need to be addressed as part of any loading of the site with wastewater. Current instability in the slope left unaddressed would be problematic and a geotechnical engineer should evaluate the site. C. Heindel reviewed what could be the next steps into an investigation with slope stability, soil characteristics, and water level monitoring over a period of two year.
S. Hadd stated that a survey had gone out to property owners along East Lakeshore Drive asking if they would be willing to have their property evaluated for community septic. Only twenty property owners responded with four in the affirmative. Three of the four respondents were for lakeside lots and the fourth site was too constrained for onsite septic. The lot identified by the Integrated Water Resources Management Plan at Goodsell Point for community septic is a possibility but would likely yield less than 4,000 gallons per day of wastewater treatment. S. Hadd then provided an overview of what the projected costs would be to build and maintain a tertiary treatment facility for the Bayside Hazelett Property with $17.45 in construction costs and possibly $200,000 or more in annual operating costs.
Phyllis Braden asked about Goodsell Point and the possibility of other sites that could be available for community septic. Barbara Maas stated that the area was clay and ledge with a steep drop off.
M. Sowles asked about tertiary treatment. C. Heindel stated that the drip irrigation field could be better at removing phosphorus than a regular field. He stated that all system generally work the same. Jack Scully stated that he believed that 51 properties along East Lakeshore Drive may be at risk and that a lesser system should be considered for just these properties. Barb Stafford asked what the cost would be to the community. The Commission clarified that the Selectboard would have to determine that in the future.
P. Neupane asked C. Heindel if reducing flows would reduce study time and he replied it would not. Brian Costello advocated for a smaller system as being cost effective and the possibility of having pedestrian improvements over wastewater infrastructure and that the cost of stabilizing a bank could be attributed to recreation. M. Sowles stated that she believed the study area should be different. J. Scully clarified his statement on 51 properties stating that the Mongeon and Lefebvre systems should not be included in the 50 or so properties that were likely problematic right along the lake.
S. Austin asked what other development could occur on the Bayside Hazelett property with a wastewater system. C. Heindel stated that paths could be located in the vicinity of the field but not on the field. B. Costello asked what other sites were considered and advocated that the school and circ highway sites should be considered. C. Heindel stated that the farther east of the Bayside Hazelett site the thinner the sands became and other sites would likely be less favorable. Scott Wood asked if a wastewater system would be subject to Act 250. S. Hadd stated that funding of a project would likely involve some form of NEPA evaluation whether at the State or Federal level. J. Scully stated that Upper Bayside Park could also be looked to as a possible site for septic. R. Paquette thanked the consultant for the presentation and the public for coming. R. Arnold asked if the school properties could be used for non-school uses. B. Costello asked about Act 250 on school property. The Commission concluded the matter.
M. Tarinelli made a motion to approve the minutes and R. Arnold seconded. Approved 4-0 with corrections.
The Commission agreed to cancel the September 3rd meeting in favor of a full day septic tour on September 6th.
Minutes taken and respectfully submitted by S. Hadd.
**STAFF NOTES**
Approved this the 20th day of September 2019.
______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ Planning Commission