Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPCA Smith / Clark Street (Pleasant Hills Condo Project) SOgN 8 u, O F 7-� V/ SV ILb� ?0• 0 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 ��osoR.40 AREA CODE 203/644-2511 March 12 , 1992 Mr . Jean Marc Jacques JMJ Construction Company 658 Ellington Road South Windsor , CT 06074 RE : Developer ' s Agreement Dear Mr . Jacques : The Water Pollution Control Authority has reviewed your request for consideration of a developer ' s agreement for the cross country sewer line installed between Smith Street and Clark Street as part of the 1984 Pleasant Hills condominium project . A review was made of the minutes of pertinent meetings (copies enclosed) , and based upon the conditions or the final approval (November 7 , 1984) , and upon the .fact that the Town requirements for the project ' s sewer design were no different than what the Town required of any other private developer , the Authority has determined that there is no particular obligation on the Town ' s part or anyone ' s part to enter into a developer ' s agreement with JMJ Construction Company for said cross country sewer line . Please feel free to contact Assistant Public Water Director , Fred Shaw , at the Town Hall if you have any further questions concerning this subject . Very truly yours , Joseph Carino, Chairman Water Pollution Control Authority Town of South Windsor JC/asb �Y � V January 31, 1992 TO: Members of the Town of South Windsor Water Pollution Control Authority FROM: Fred Shaw, Assistant Director of Public Works RE: JMJ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY REQUEST FOR DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT At_th,6 direction of the Authority, information has been collected is provided hereinafter relative to those conditions under which approval was granted in 1984 for the relocation of the main sewer line serving the Pleasant Hills condominium project. BACKGROUND During that time when said approval was obtained, the Authority was in the process of reviewing, amending, changing, and compiling a book of Town sewer rules and regulations . One topic of discussion involved the concept of a "developer's agreement. " The existing sewer ordinance contained a provision for developer's agreements, but was subsequently eliminated from the amended sewer rules and regulations . The original (1983) design plan for the Pleasant Hills condominium project involved connection to the existing sewer installed near the intersection of Smith and Clark to service the Burr Meadow condominium project. The Burr Meadow developer had requested Authority consideration for a developer's agreement to recover a portion of his costs to install a sewer at a depth greater than what was required to service his project. The original design plan for the Pleasant Hills project was approved October 4, 1983, Exhibit A (attached hereto) illustrates the sewer connection schematic for said plan. On October 16, 1984, the Pleasant Hills developer requested Authority approval to modify the project sewer design so as to relocate the sewer serving his project to extend cross-country between Smith Street and Clark Street. Exhibit B illustrates this modified sewer plan. Final approval of the modified sewer plan was granted on November 7, 1984 . The following chronology lists those W.P.C.A. meetings involving discussions on the topics of Burr Meadow developer's agreements, Pleasant Hills sewer approval and approval of the- relocation of the Pleasant Hills sewer. Copies of the corresponding minutes of each meeting are attached hereto as exhibits . To: Members of Town of South Windsor Water Pollution Control Authority From: Fred Shaw, Assistant Director of Public Works Re: JMJ Construction Company Request for Developer's Agreement Page 2 January 31, 1992 Date Exhibit Description 9/20/83 C W.P.C.A. review of Pleasant Hills project, (original sewer plan) 9/20/83 D Discussion of Burr Meadow developer's agreement 10/4/83 E Pleasant Hills project approved; developer agrees to abide by W.P.C.A. decision regarding requirements of Burr Meadow developer's agreement 11/1/83 F Discussion concerning Burr Meadow - developer's agreement 8/21/84 G Further discussion concerning Burr Meadow developer's agreement 9/4/84 H Discussion of developer' s agreement concept 9/18/84 I Developer's agreement concept discussion continued 10/16/84 J Pleasant Hills sewer relocation request 11/7/84 K Pleasant Hills sewer relocation approval -CFS:bmr Attachments a i7Mr, -- 7 10 �15 .15 ROAD PUMP STATION 1- 7 CLARK STREET PUMP STATION 1�- Ornor, 1,ergree, co GOP --- -- --------- " r �,�� -- l`,4!t t �� V �4s ���^d^ �✓ �e�'�(wr.�iR �h�r�Y '�.� �, w a f ; �,-1..�r,��T y Ys.�'.a '� i'f��t 't h a y w,,L "'F•r cii`.r �s•a 1`.r tit -§ F5F a`. 15 k ELLINGTON ROAD ti PUMP STATION CLARK STREET ' . PUAAP STATION � 4FYCgmq, Nel- �� f '7do�C• Al 1 i b f _ e WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20 1983 04.4,411 _ Chairman Alexander called the meeting to order at 7:35 P. M. (A) ROLL CALL Present Chairman Alexander, Mr. Canino, Mr. Gay, Mr. Gilsenan, Mr. Lanza, Mr. Peterson Absent: --- Also Present: Mr. Shaw (B) ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS Mr. Gilsenan made a motion to accept the minutes of the regular meeting of September 6, 1983. Mr. Gay seconded the motion. Mr. Shaw said on page 3. of the September 6, 1983 minutes, the minutes reflect that he said the agreement had not been sent to the attorneys when in fact that it had. Mr. Shaw said on _page 5. , under item 6. 2 Status Items. The minutes reflect that he said he received the insurance back from the Town Attorneys office. Mr. Shaw said the wordj.ng should read that he received the draft agreement back from the Town Attorneys office. Motion carried that the September 6, 1983 regular meeting minutes be accepted as modified with Mr. Peterson abstaining from voting. Five affirmative votes. (C) COMMUNICATIONS it REPORTS 1•.. 2. 3. 4. No reports at this meeting. (D) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ( Items Not On Agenda) There was no one present from the public under this catecory. Mr. Peterson made a motion to suspend the rules and go to item H. 2. on the agenda. Mr. Gilsenan seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. (H) NEW BUSINESS 2. Approval —Pleasant Hills Condominiums - Attorney Raymond LeFoll Attorney LeFoll was present to represent J. R. Realty of Connecticut, Inc. to seek approval for the discharge of sewerage in the Pleasant Hills Condominium project. Attorney LeFoll said there are 130 condominium units bounded by Wheeler Road, Smith Street and Clark Street. Mr. LeFoll passed copies of the site plan to the commissioners for their rev ew. • �Xt-1-i�l T G Mr. :.illiam Creedon from Reino Hyyppa & I ssociates was present to discuss the calculations and answer questions on the ?leasant Hills Condominiums. Mr. Creedon went over the project with the !•'. P. C. Mr. LeFoll said it is his understanding that when Burr Mleacoa:s put in the • sek•rer line they lowered it to accommodate further development down the line. He said it is also his understanding that the W. P. C. A. is considering some kind of contribution from future developers to she developer of Burr Meadows in order to reimburse him for his added cost %,,hich he did not have to incur for his own development. attorney LeFoll said his client is more than willing to 2ay hie fair ehnrp And he thinks i i, inn C aM1 n to lower the line on Clark Street so th t s� r-ec o ed. Attorney e o l said he believes the additional cost to the developer was $11 ,000.00. Mr. Shaw said the Engineering Cepartment has reviewed the plans and found them to be acceptable. Mr. Carino questioned whether the proposed 10" pipe would be adequate. ! Mr. Creedon said the 10" pipe is more then adequate to handle the development. Discussion followed. Mr. Carino asked if this line is going in under a Developer' s Permit. Mr. :Shaw said that it isn't. Mr. -Carino questioned ,.!hy this iine, if it is being paid by the developer, is not going in under a Developer' s Permit. Mr. Shaw said it isn't always appropriate to use the Developer 's Permitas it is a cost to the Town to put this in under the 'Ceveioper' s Permit. Furt4er discussion followed. 1'r. Peterson said he would like to see letter from Enginee that sa they checked the flows and that the 10" pipe is adequate toservicethatyarea. Mr. Gilsenan made a motion that the P. C. vote on Pleasant Hills Condominiums with the stipulation that we have a letter from Engineering _ in our file that says they reviewed the capacity and are satisfied. Mr. Gay seconded the motion. Mr. Carino said he would also like to see, in writing, the following: 1 . The agreement between the Tom and the Developer as to what is going to take place on Smith Street and hog•, it is going to be handle a C. Is the developer going to ig into a public street with a private line. - is this going to be handled under a Developer' s Permit: ' -3- EXH1 ?, iT C 4. if this isn' t going to be handled under a Developer ' s Permit, how is it going to be handled? t;ho is going to do the inspection? Further discussion followed. Mr. Gi 1 senan t•:i thdrew his motion.. Mr. Gay withdrew his second. Mr. Peterson said he would like the minutes to reflect Mr. Carino' s concern regarding upstream developments typing into this line. Mr. LeFoll concluded by saying he feels that the 10" line is substantially oversized for the development of the 120 acres. (E) BILLS CHANGE ORDERS DISBURS=MENTS S. E. A. Consultants, Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . $28,000. 00 Contract Amendments Mr. Shaw said he has not heard from S. E. A. Consultants regarding the $28,000. He said he tried to telephone S. E. A. today, but no one was answering the telephones. This bill was tabled. (F) UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1 . Treatment Plant Modifications Mr. Shaw said he indicated, at the last meeting, that he is trying to arrange a meeting with Ingras, DEP, and the other municipalities who wish to take advantage of the Ingrass process for sludge disposal . He said it looks as though the meeting will take place October 4th or 5th. Mr. Shaw said one punch list item remains. He said the ventillation control unit only works some of the time. He said the subcontractor has aar`ed to f i x t!-J s with the knowledge of the contractor. 2. Bryrewood Condominiums - 1982 Sewer User Charge Mr. Peterson made a motion that the W. P. C. A. refund to Bryrewood Condominium r.ssociation that portion of the interest between the period in which we indicated to them that we would seek clarification from the Tax Collector' s Office and the time which we actually notified them. F,r. Lanza seconded the motion. RILL CALL VOTE: Chairman Alexander - "No" M: . Carino - "Yes" Mr. Gay - "No" Mr. Lanza - "Yes" Mr. Gilsenan - "No" Mr. Peterson - "Yes" Motion fails. Three affirmative votes. Chairman i%lexander asked the Clerk to write to Bryrewood Condominiums and inform them of the vote. Further discussion followed. Mr. Gilsenan said maybe if the cunning and Zoning Commission would entertain a request from the W. P. C. A. that on every application in front of them, they notify the applicant that if, in fact, they do not get the requisite authority from the W. P. C. A. , they are at risk and that 4r. P very well, levy sanctions. • C— may Mr. .lexander said he spoke to the Town Manager and he is under the impression that the problem is being handled and that the W. P. C. ;,. will be involved in the solution. - Mr. Shaw said within two days after Planning and Zoning Gives their conditionai approval , a meeting is set up frith the To�•rn Staff for t�-,e developer. T ,e developer is to attend that meeting and the members of the staff are also to be present to let the developer know what additional approvals are required, set up meetings, indicate what date the agenda item will appear on. Further discussion followed. The F. C. A. directed the Chairman to write .a letter to larming and Zoning that expresses their concerns, ideas, etc. T;-ev also asked t!r. Iexancar to convey to Planning and Zoni ng ng the need to admonish developers and engineers that sanctions will be taken if sewer lines are installed wi tho;._ '-:- P. C. Al. approval. (F) UNFR41SHEJ BUSINESS 4. status Items 1. 2. 3. Still waiting for additional information on these items. 4. Intertown Agreement with Vernon (F. Shaw) Mr. Slaw said he sent four (u) copies of the agreement to Vernon in July for their signature. He said it is his understanding that Vernon approved the agr emient in July but it has not been signed. Mr. S ak-j said. he spoke to Charles Pitkat, Chairman and he thought thie contract had been sicned.. Mr. Pitkat told Mr. Shaw he would push the issue with the rest of. the commission and find out where the situation stands and le. South : incscr know as soon as possibie. 5. Burr Meadow Associates (F. Sha►,,) Mr. Peterson asked the status for Burr Meadow Associates. He said we would have tc have the information regarding the :eveloper's �creeimei or Pleasant .Hills Condominiums for the next meeting. Mr. Shaw said he received the information he requested from the Engineering Department. He said his first pass at t' e proposed assessment metholl i s a complex situat '.;n. He said they divided up the drainage basin and determined t! at there were 'ZO acres. Under present zoning, 11E residential units can be connected in that area. Mr. Shaw sai;; the first attempt was to try to bre-k this down into population served. He said if someone comas in to a drainage area, and is using up a certain part of that drainage basin, they would pay their fair share based upon the capital contribution (the number or individuals). EX I+i 61T -7- Mr. Peterson asked if we would have a proposal that we could act on " at the next meeting so we could give an answer to Pleasant Hilis Condominiums. Mr. ;haw said the proposal was only a first attempt. He said according to the first proposal , Pleasant Hills would pay the full $1 :1 ,000.00. Mr. Shaw said this is a complex .problem because they are trying to break up a portion, in this case, $11',000.00, for upstream improvements and they don' t know what the upstream improvements are going to be. Mr. Gay said it was his impression that the two parties were going to negotiate and the W. P. C. i. was going to stay out of this. Mr. Gilsenan said he remembers that to be correct. The Clerk said the minutes of June*21 , 1983 reflect that Mr. Shaw was asked to-write to the To%•rn attorney sometime ago and ask if the td. P. C. A. has the authority to enter into such an agreement and he had not heard from Attorney Gerlt to date. Mrs. Moniz said the minutes also reflect that Mr. Shaw was asked to prepare a methodology for assessing future developers down the line. Mr. Peterson said the P. C. A. could not give Pleasant Hills any details Without the response of the Town Attorney. Mr. Carino said Mr. Shaw could get the details ready but he would have to get togc-ther with the Town /'.ttorney. Mr. Shac;- said he would contact Attorney Gerlt on this matter. G) SU°C^XNjTTc^ REPC`-TS Sei-.er ;;aster Plan (M. Peterson) Mir. Peterson said his subcommittee has not met since the sum er recess. He said there are a couple of outstanding items: I. '•;hether the back-up cata that we need on the -iiows, a:c. Might be avai 1 abi e at C.S '. ►'!r. Shaw said t,tlis information isn' t available. 2. Evaluation proposals and how do we go about c-oosinc an Engineering Firm. Mr. Sha%%, said he just received most of the proposals bet�.een 4:00 i-. N. and 4:30 P. M. this afternoon and has not had time to review them. The following Engineering firms submitted proposals: t.nderson-Ni chol s `ewi ncton, Ct. Flaherty - Giavara Associates ";ew Haven, Ct. -4- sent him another contract with a cover letter saying it is exactly like the one they approved for Simsbury. Mr. Shaw said Mr. Covey expects this to move along very quickly. He said as soon as he receives the agreement, he is prepared to go to the M. D. C. Mr. Shaw said his people have been trained and new sludge feed systems have been installed at the plant. He concluded by saying that until the agreement comes, his people will continue to compost. 2. Approval - Pleasant Hills Condominiums —Attorney Raymond LeFoll Attorney LeFoll was present to ask sewer approval for the Pleasant Hills Condominiums. Mr. LeFoll said it was niutually agreed, at the last meet- ing, that this matter would be discussed at this meeting after the W. P. C. A. received communication from the Engineering Department verifying the existing design of a 10" pipe or requesting a 12" pipe. Chairman Alexander received a memorandum from Robert Arsenault dated October 4, 1983, Mr. Arsenault says he is confident in the sanitary sewer system as proposed. The memo was circulated among the W. P. C. A. members. Mr. Peterson made a motion to accept the proposed sewer line for Pleasant Hills Condominiums - J. R. Realty of Connecticut - map dated 6/29/83 Mar.=1-83-1A - 17 sheets. Mr. Gay seconded the motion. Motion carried with Mr. Alexander abstaining. Four affirmative votes. Mr. Carino suggested that the memorandum received be sent to Planning and Zoning. The Clerk said she would send the memo to Planning and Zoning. Mr. Carino said he was concerned with the road being re-conditioned after the sewer is installed. Mr. Shaw said the requirements for approval will state that the road will be restored according to Town specifications with a complete over- lay. Mr. Carino asked if this would be a complete overlay. Mr. Creedon said he would go along with the specifications as set down by the Town Engineer. He said if the Town Engineer says a complete overley is needed, that is what will be done. Mr. Shaw told Mr. LeFoll that he would contact him regarding the Developer' s Agreement._ Mr. LeFoll said he would go along with whatever the W. P. C. A. decides, providing it isfair and equitable. Mr. Shaw asked the Clerk to send a dopy of Mr. Arsenault' s memo to Attorney LeFoll along with the approval letter. Mr. Peterson made a motion to suspend the rules and go to item H. , 2. on the agenda. Mr. Gay seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. ' J -6- Mr. Shaw said the specifications are ready to go to bid. He said he would bring a copy of all the bidding documents to Mr. Pitkat to make sure he has no problem with them. Mr. Alexander said he would attend the meeting of the Vernon W. P. C. A. with Mr. Shaw. FM4. Burr Meadow Associates - Developer's Agreement (F. Shaw) r. Shaw said he received a letter fromAttorney Gerlt dated eptember 28, 1983 regarding Burr Meadow Associates and the Possibility of entering into a Developer' s Agreement. Mr. Shaw said Attorney Gerlt said "Connecticut General Statute, Section 7-247, provides that the W. P. C. A. may enter into and fulfill contracts, including contracts for a term of years with any person. . . to provide sewerage system service for any sewage. '' The commissioners asked that this item be placed on the next agenda as an action item. 5. tT. it M. - Avery Street - Opinion from Town Attorney - Re: Sewer Assessments Mr. Carino read a letter to the W. P. C. A. regarding assessing properties (4) along a gravity feed line that was installed by T. & M. Buiading Company. (Letter dated September 29, 983). Attorney Gerlt says, in his letter of September 29, 1983, that the W. P. C. A. may assess these properties. Mr. Carino said there were problems to consider: I . What depth is the line located. 2. A private developer put in a line at no cost to the Town and the Town is going to reap 100%, profit in assessing four property owners. 3. Chances are there are no laterals and the. homeowners are going to have to put the laterals in at their own expense because we don't believe the developer was asked -to install laterals. Mr. Alexander asked that this item be placed on the next agenda as an action item. Mr. Carino asked Mr. Shaw to check the line to see if it is possible for the property owners to connect to the sewer. 6. Agreement With M. D. C. - Liquid Sludge Disposal (F. Shaw) Discussed under item F. 1. on the agenda. )C 141181 T F Mr. Shaw said Mr. Aman told him that the Town provided a lateral for the Dennis property on Clinton Drive. Mr. Shaw said the W. P. him, at the last meeting, to look at the Dennis situation and reported back to the commission. He said the situations between the properties on McGrath Road and the Dennis situation are similar. He said the Town did put in a lateral for Mr. Dennis. After a lengthly disco"ssion,on the lateral Mr. - -Shaw pointed out that -Mr. Aman was not" the owner "of. ' e property. Therefore, the W.' P.- C.: A.- : decided not to issue a Policy-statement until Mr. Shaw find dut who is going to be the owner of this property. - 3. Burr Meadow­ Associates . Developer's Agreement (F. Shaw) Mr. Alexander abstained from discussion on this matter. Mr. Shaw said--he received a letter from the Town Attorney dated September 28, 1983 regarding Burr Meadow Associates. He id the' Town Attorney says that under Connecticut General Statutes, Section al-247, the W. P. C. A. has the authority to enter into a Developer's Agreement. Mr. Shaw gave the W. P. C: 'A. members a memorandum dated October 4, 1983 regarding BURR MEADOW DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT: ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE. Mr. Shaw said this is his second attempt at an assessment procedure. He said he tried to find a rational -approach. Mr. Shaw said the problem is that all of our procedures show assessment by means of front footage. He said in this particular case, we have undeveloped drainage area connecting to the end of a pipe. Mr. Shaw said his first attempt was to explore the possibilities of dividing this watershed up -into population that could be serviced per capita and develop a formula. Mr. Shaw said this was found to be very difficult to do, not knowing how the upper area watershed might develop. Discussion followed on Mr. Shaw' s memorandum which is attached to the minutes. The W. P. C. A. agreed to Mr. Shaw's second assessment procedure. Further discussion followed. Mr. Lanza asked the commission if they want Developer's Agreements as part of their policy. He said there is more to this than he thinks the W. P. C. A. realizes. Mr. ' Lanza said if the Town is involved, administrative costs will have to be considered. Further discussion followed. Mr. Peterson asked if this has to go to public hearing. He said he believes that since we are assessing people, we have to go to public hearing. Further discussion followed. Mr. Carino said the first thing that has to be done is our present rules and regulations have to be checked to see how much, if anything, extends to this type of situation. He said we have Developer's Agreements on the books and Developer's Agreements have been utilized. Mr. Carino said he has to see -7- if what is in our rules and regulations will apply to Burr Meadows. Mr. Gilsenan said the commission might not Kant to use Burr Meadows to establish policy. He said he views Burr Meadows as distinct and separate from that which will occur in the future. Mr. Gilsenan said he thinks this is a unique situation. He asked if this could be handled independent of any policy decision. Mr. Carino said we have to be careful that we do not sletiprecedent with Burr Meadows by handling it as a unique situation. He suggested that Mr. Shaw and he check the rules and regulations regarding Developer's Agreements and report back to the W. P. C. A. Mr. Gay made a motion to table this item pending further clarification from Messrs. Carino and Shaw. Mr. Gilsenan seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. 4. T. it M. Avery Street - Opinion from Town Attorney - Re: Sewer Assessments Mr. Shaw said the W. P. C. A. asked him to check to see if the property owners involved are able to tie-in to the sewer. He said he went to check on this situation and found that the as-built drawings have not been filed by T. & M. because the project has not been completed. Mr. Shaw said he is aware of one instance where the property owner will not be able to tie-in. to the sewer. Mr. Carino pointed out that the Town Attorney statas in his letter of September 29, 1983 that the W. P. C. A. may assess the property owners if they can use the pipe. _ Mr. Lanza made a motion to table this item. Mr. Gilsenan seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. 5. Clarification from Town Attorney - Re: Assessments on Subdivided Properties & Change in Status - P. A. 490 Properties Mr. Carino pointed out that the Town Attorney says in -his letter of September 29, 1983 "However, when this land is subsequently developed, benefits to buildings and structures constructed or expanded may be assessed as if the new or expanded buildings or structures had existed at the time of the initial assessment." .- (Third paragraph - last sentence). Mr. Carino said the Town Attorney is saying that you 'may" not you "shall ". Discussion followed. Mr. Gilsenan made a motion to table this item until the words "may" and "shall" are clarified. Mr. Gay seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. 6. Status Items 1. Close Out Contracts P, R, S (F. Shaw) Mr. Shaw said Mr. Spring has the necessary information. F M E M O R A N D U M October 4 , 1983 - TO: Water Pollution Control Authority RE: BURR MEADOWS DEVELOPER' S AGREEMENT: ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE ASSUMPTIONS 1. Limiting factor -- . 3% slope of10" P.V.C. p4p� crossing existing 48" culvert on Smith Street. 2. Maximum Flow Capacity. is 1. 4 CFS. 3 . Incremental Benefit of Clark Street gravity sewer = $11 , 533. 18 . 4 . Prorate Incremental Benefit according to anticipated use of reserve capacity. Developer' s Share Project Flow (CFS) 1. 4 CFS x $11 , 533. 18 Example Pleasant Hills Condominium Project Flow = . 3 CFS Developer' s Share • 3 CFS x $11 , 533. 18 1 . 4 CFS $2 , 471. 40 T/ `„"'� C. F. Shaw, Superintendent Bureau of Pollution Control CFS :bw • Au._) Gr engineer to do a rush job to meet the November 1 , 1984 completion date. Mr. Carino asked Mr. Shaw if he was aware of any problems based on the information that he received to date. Mr. Shaw said it appears that all the trunk line sewers are well within their capacity. He said the pump station designs appear to be adequate and well within their capacity. He said the actual pumping output is quite a bit lower than what he expected. He said in some cases the pumps are putting out 48% of what they are supposed to. He said these pumps are in good shape. The W. P. C. A. gave Mr. Carino permission to tell Flaherty tt Giavara they could hold off with the dry weather testing until September if Mr. Gilligan has no problem with this. 2. Developers Permit - Burr Meadows - Raymond Alexander 7Mr. -Shaw said the W. P. C. A. received a letter from Burr Meadows requesting the status of the Developer's Permit that we discussed concerning this project. He said the developer lowered a section of gravity line on Clark Street and put a small line along Smith Street. He said they were requested by the Town to make these improvements not only to handle their own project but to handle projects upstream. Mr. Shaw said Mr. Alexander requested a Developer's Agreement which would help to recover their costs. Discussion followed. ' Mr. Carino asked that this item be placed on the next agenda for the first meeting in September and that the commissioners review the Developer' s Permit in the rules and regulations and try to determine any inadequacies that it might have and how we can change it. (I) MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING CLAIMS Tabled. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Cottle made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Gilsenan seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:05 P. M. ,P ,Y. 0, onfz erk Mark A. Peterson, Secretary Mr. Peterson felt we should advise the Council that all the improvements to the Treatment Plant going to exceed the 1.3 million dollars. IT, Mr.Mr. Carino said we should tell the Council that our costs have exceeded , what we had budgeted for and to finish the project we expect to go over by approximately (X amount of dollars). Amount to be determined by -Mr. Peterson when he reviews Mr. Shaw's report. Mr. Carino felt we i8ould. tell Mr. Mankey that we have $223,000.00 to spend on the garage improvements and that his fee would have to come out of that amount. Ke said he.was not in favor with a cost plus fixed fee but would lather negotiate this on a fixed fee basis. Mr. Peterson said the W. P. C. A. still has to resolve the question of Professional Liabilities insurance. Mr. Carino asked Mr. Shaw to_get the facts on what the Building Cormission does with regard to insurance similar to the Professional Liabilities. Mr. Lanza said we.still have not resolved how the Architect is going to be paid. Mr. Carino reiterated his comments that he doesn't want the Architect• to be paid on a cost plus fixed fee basis. He said he wants to use the fixed fee method. He said we have to be careful not to change the scope of the project. Mr. Cottle said he would sit down with Mr. Mankey and Mr. Shaw to discuss the contract. 3. 3. Deveiocers Permit - Burr Meadows (Raymond Alexander) Mr. Shaw said at the last meeting Mr. Carino asked the commission to review the existing regulation on Developer' s Permits. Mr. Lanza said it is his understanding that when Raymond Alexander was putting the line in on Clark Street, he put the line lower bec*use .Buck Page required him to do this for future development. He said he understands that this wasn' t required by Planning and Zoning or the W. P. C. A. Mr. Lanza said he assumes Raymond Alexander expects to be reimbursed for his work. He said the question is who is going to participate in that reimbursement. Mr. Carino said he believes it is the additional property owners that might take advantage of hooking up to that line. Mr. Shaw said everyone agreed in principle with the need for a Developer' s- Permit in this case. He said he did recomend to the commission a formula determining proportionate shares. Discussion followed. Mr. Peterson ask.:d that the minutes be researched regarding Burr Meadows to see what the formula was. � . y-' 195 4. Discussion - Developer's Agreements Mr. Lanza said he feels that this is a cost the developer should bear, :.. but his concern is how the developer will be reimbursed and his suggest- ion is if the developer incurs additional expenses for future development, :.: every future developer that ties in should have to foot that cost. ••. Mr. Carino disagreed with Mr. Lanza' s theory. Discussion followed. :. Mr. Shaw said there are two different situations concerning Developer's Agreements. He said there is one instance where the developer comes along and lays a sewer along an existing road where there are existing houses or lots. He said there is another situation where the developer connects to the end of a pipe. There is potential for future upstream development but the lots are not developed yet. Mr. Shaw said in the :. first case, we might be able to handle this by telling the developer to put in the sewers, they would become the Town sewers, and we would give the developer a year to approach the owners of abutting properties, letting them know how much it will be when the Town takes over the system and assesses them. The property owner will have the opportunity to make the arrangements with the developer within that period of time =• and allow him to work out his own deal with them. After that, the Town -• steps in, assesses all the properties, and there is no further need :. for a Developer' s Permit. Mr. Shaw said the other case is when the developer comes in and puts .. in the sewer (Burr Meadows), and incurs a cost that may benefit some- one else. When the second developer comes along, he pays the entire .. amount of that benefit to the first developer. That negates the first Developer' s Agreement. The second developer pursues his project. A third developer comes along to connect into that project. The third developer then pays to the second developer just those costs that the second developer doesn' t benefit from and the Town is removed from the situation. Mr. Spring said Burr Meadows is a unique situation. He said the Town .. required a developer to put a pipe in the street, in a different depth, .. in order to support future developments. He said it wasn't necessary for the developer for his project. He said the developer incurred a cost of X amount of dollars to benefit future developers develop their property by putting that pipe so many feet deeper in the around. Mr. Spring said the original Developer' s Permit was with Savin Brothers. He said in this instance. the developer put the pipe in the street and the Town gave the property owners a period of .ten years to pay the developer. When the Town took over the line, we assessed all those people who did not become part of the Developer ' s Agreement. Mr. Spring said the Town provided a collection service for the developer. He said he wants to end that;-as the Town never was reimbursed for it and they maintained all the records, . turned over the money to the developer, and continue to turn over the money. Mr. Spring said he would like the W. P. C. A. to adopt the policy of having the developer put in the sewers and giving the property owners a year to deal with the developer before the Town takes over the system and assesses the properties. Mr. Spring said the Town has asked the developer of Burr Meadows to incur an additional cost for future development or a connection charge. In other words, the Town does not charge a connection charge to connect to our main line. They charge an individual connnection charge for each home. Mr. Spring said he feels that if we are going to ask .a developer to incur an additional cost .for future development, and only in those cases where we! are asking them to incur an additional cost, then the original developer should receive .something back for his cost that benefits the Town-and future developers. leave them with the option. If Developer ##1 incurs a cost of $10,000.00, Developer #2 comes in. He turns around, lays an additional pipe and benefits 50% of that. He should pay Developer #1 the $10,000.00. He would then have a lien on that pipe for $5,000.00 for any future development. If Dev eloper n3 benefited 50%, it would wipe all the liens off. If not, it would continue on until the maximum $10,000.00 or some agreement was reached between the two developers. The Town would be out of it ' completely. Mr. Carino asked how we would control the Inter-Developer' s Agreement. Mr. Lanza said we would control it with our rules and regulations. Mr. Carino said he thinks we have to talk with the Town Attorney because :. he feels there could be.problems with this. Mr. Peterson said he feels this should be handled by the assessment subcommittee for a solution and that the Town Attorney should be contacted for his opinion. Mr. Peterson asked the Clerk to research the minutes to see if Mr. Shaw' s assessment procedure for Burr Meadows was adopted by the W. P. C. A. (G) SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS 1 . Sewer Master Plan (M. Peterson) Mr. Peterson said Mr. Shaw reported, at the last meeting, that due to the very wet weather, the engineer was having difficulties in doing the dry weather monitoring. Mr. Shaw passed out a memorandum from Flaherty Giavara Associates dates September 13, 1984. Mr. Peterson said Flaherty Giavara made the following proposals to the Authorityy 0 c+oio � i co; tct sL4 -7- 2. Proposal for Smith S Clark Streets - Relocation of Trunk Sewer -' (Attorney Raymond LeFoll ) Attorney Raymond LeFoll was present at this meeting to represent J. R. Realty on tte relocation of the sewer line. Mr. LeFoll said in a letter _.. from former Chairman Ralph Alexander, dated October 10, 1983, the W. P. C. A. , did, in fact, approve the proposed sewer line for Pleasant Hills Condominiums, a 25 acre.,-parcel at the intersection of Smith Street, Wheeler Road and Pleasant Valley Road. He said the approval called for location of the sewer line to exit the 25 acre site and go down Smith Street and tie-in to the existing sewer line at the intersection of Smith and Clark Streets. Attorney LeFoll said as part of the approval process that was rendered back in October of 1983, the commission had said that because Mr. Alexander was required to lower his sewer line, Mr. LeFoll ' s client would be required to reimburse him in accordance with a formula that the commission would eventually work out. Mr. LeFoll said he understood that and agreed to it • at that time. Attorney LeFoll said how the commission chooses to treat that reimbursement, at this particular time, with this modifieati"on, if they don't tie into the sewer at the intersection of Smith and Clark, is up to them. He said he intends to abide by his commitment that he made in October of 1983. Attorney LeFoll introduced Richard Meehan of Meehan Associates and Mr. Meehan's associate, Dan Holmes. Messrs. Meehan and Holmes presented the modification to the W. P. C. A. Discussion followed. Mr. Lanza said he believes an agreement should be worked out between Attorney LeFoll and Mr. Alexander regarding the reim"_ursement that is due Mr. Alexander for lowerina th6 sewer line. he said he would like an agreement worked out before he approves the relocation of the trunk sewer. Mr. LeFoll said the approval should'nt be contingent upon working out an agreement with Mr. Alexander. Mr. Carino said they can only approve the concept. He said the Engineering Department is going to have to look at the plans. Mr. Carino said the first step is to have Attorney LeFoll and Mr. Alexander to try to work out an agreement. If that happens, the next step is that the finai plans will be presented to the W. P. C. A. for our approval , after the Engineering Department has looked at them. Mr. Carino said if Messrs. LeFoll and Alexander can' t work out an agreement, the situation comes back to the commission and we have to. be involved again. Mr. Carino said we then have leverace, as both gentlemen will be back for condominium approval . He said the W. P. C. A. can then say 1114o. " he commission reviewed the conceptual plans for the relocation of the trunk sewer and agree with said plans, subject to t'-e final plans being submitted. 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 ~°SOR•co`' AREA CODE 203/644-2511 Mr. Carino told Attorney LeFoll that the item would be placed on • the November 7, 1984 agenda for final approval at that time :.. and that the con-mission would give final approval if everything is in order and the Engineering Department has approved the final _. plans. �I) MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS• PENDING CLAIMS _. Mr. Lanza made a motion to go into Executive Session to discuss pending clains. Mr. Alexander seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. The W: P. C.-A. -went-into Ezecurtive Session at 9:55 P. M. There was no formal action in Executive Session. (J) ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:00 P. M. hAl re gy :M6ni z; Clerk u,ark A. Peterson, Secretary j f l.' nlovev✓t�e,� �.� 9 S �x VA A t3 Mr. Peterson said he wished to goon record to say that although he has t.he7 .� . utmost respect for Mr. Spring, he believes that there may be a potential `�• ' conflict of the availability of funds, particularly in regards t6 other potential requirements to finalize other contracts. He said he is aware that the commission voted to approve the sewering of Sullivan Avenue. He made his comments at this meeting because he was absent..when the W. F. C. A. voted to approve this project. Mr. Peterson said he would not have voted to sewer Sullivan Avenue. Motion unanimously carried. 3. Proposal for Smith and Clark Streets - Relocation of Trunk Sewers Mr. Donald Holmes of Meehan Associates was present to seek final approval from the W. P. C. A. He said the original plan that Mr. Jacques had for serving Pleasant Hills 1 was to construct a sewer entirely under Smith Street under the Twin 481, Culverts and arriving at the intersection of Smith and Clark Streets and entering there. Mr. Holmes said since '' that plan was approved by the W. P. C. A. , Mr. Jacques got an option on the Hartman piece, which is on the north side of Smith and east side of Clark on approximately 80 acres. He said it became obvious that constructing a sewer entirely under Smith Street to the Smith/Clark " intersection and then coming back and constructing this sewer to serve Pleasant Hills 2 was redundant. Mr. Holmes said the westerly path on Smith Street was no longer needed. He said the latest plan will serve both Pleasant Hills 1 and the proposed Pleasant Hills 2. ' Mr. Holmes said the Town Staff has reviewed the plans and Rick Martel would rather have an outside drop manhole—than an inside. Mr. Shaw said Mr. Jacques has an easement for that cross country line. Mr. Shaw said since the last meeting, it has come to his attention that the developer doesn' t own the property yet. He said the developer does, however, have an option to purchase that property .later this month. Discussion followed. Mr. Lanza said it is his understanding that the contractor does not own the land.. Mr. Holmes said although the contractor does not own the land yet, he does nave an easement. Mr. Lanza said he doesn't believe a contractor ever approached the W. P. C. A. for final approval with just an easement, especially when he doesn't own the land. Mr. Holmes said the owner, Mr. Hartman, has given Mr. Jacques an easement to construct a sewer. Mr. Peterson said the October 16, 1984 minutes reflect that the Chairman instructed Attorney LeFoll to work out an acceptable agreement with Raymond Alexander with regards to the Developer' s Fermit. Mr. Peterson asked if such an agreement had been reached between Mr. LeFoll and Mr. Alexander. M- . Raymond Alexander was present at this meeting. He informed the -3- eXH l e2T K �- W. P. C. A. that he and Attorney LeFoll had not reached an agreement. Mr. Carino said he didn't believe that the approval of this project • should be subject to the agreement between Messrs. LeFoll and Alexander. He said the two issues should be separate as the two gentlemen may never reach an agreement and then this property is tied up and can' t be developed. Mr. Holmes said the critical factor here is that this line serves Pleasant Hills 1. He said Pleasant Hills 1 has C. O. 's November 15th and people will move into those units on November 16th. Mr. Holmes said this will not be possible if there is no sewer line. The commission asked Mr. Holmes about the easement. fir. Holmes said he thought Attorney LeFoll would be present tonight • to show the W. P. C. A. the easement. Mr. Lanza asked Mr. Holmes if the plan had been approved by Planning and Zoning. Mr. Holmes said it had not. Mr. Lanza said he would like to see final approval by Planning and Zoning before he gave his approval to put in a cross country line across that property. Mr. Lanza reiterated that the contractor does not own the 1 and. Mr. Carino said there are a number of cases in Town where the person has an easement and doesn't own the property. He said this is not unusual . Further discussion followed. Mr. Shaw said Engineering has reviewed the plan and found it to be technical feasible. He said Engineering usually does not like to approve cross country lines, but in this case, it is more cost effective for the developer than the original plan. Further discussion followed. Mr. Cottle made a motion to approve the sewer line, as presented on a map of Meehan Associates, Consulting Engineer, J. & R. Realty, Smith and Clark Streets, Date 10/15/84, Sheet 1 of 3, File —841200, revised 10/16/84, contingent on satisfactory lecal evidence that the applicant has a permanent easement over the said property and that the agreement between Mr. LeFoll and Mr. Alexander will be completed before the pipe i s "1 ai d. Mr. Dickinson seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: 6- . ! YES NO ABSTAIN Chairman Carino Mr. Lanza Mr.-Alexander Mr. Cottle Mr. Dickinson Mr. Peterson Motion carried. Four affirmative votes. 4. Treatment Plant Modifications - Review of Mankey Contract Mr. Peterson asked that the fourth word under Subsection 1 . 1 . 1 be clarified by the Town Attorney. MR. Carino pointed iut that wherever the word "TOWN" is used, W. P. C. A. should be inserted. Mr. Peterson questioned whether the Architect is assisting the W. P. C. A. in the preparation of the bidding information, etc. (Subsection 1. 3.2). The commission chanced this to read: "The Architect shall prepare the necessary bidding information, bidding forms, etc.. .. . " Mr. Carino asked if the W. P. C. A. wants the Architect to be the interpretor of the contract. (Subsection' l .5.8) The commission changed this to read: "The Architect shall be the interpretor of the technical requirements, etc. . . .. ." The com.1nission changed Subsection 1 .5. 10 to read: "The Architect shall prepare Change Orders for the Town' s approval and execution in accordance With the Contract Documents and shall have authority to order minor changes in the work not involving an adjustment in the contract sum, the project quality, or an extension time which are not in compliance with the intent of the contract documents." The W. P. C. A. added the words "in advance" to Section 1 . 6 to read: "The following services are not included in Basic Services. They shall be, provided if authorized or confimred, in writing, in advance, by the Town, etc. . . . . . " Mr. Carino questioned Section 2. 6. He asked what are these services we are commiting to. Mr. Peterson said he believes Sections 2. 1 , 2.2, and 2. '3 describe those services. The commission decided to remove Section 2. 6. Mr. Shaw said Mr. Mankey informed him yesterday that he doesn' t need anymore test borings. The W. F. C. A. decided to remove Section 2.4 that refers to test borings. Mr. Peterson said it is his understandine that the Performance Bond was el irrinated.