Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRosemary Lane PW Street File STATE OF CONNECTICUT < DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION at T November 4, 1991 Jean E. Zurbrigen, Town Manager Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Dear Ms. Zurbrigen: Mr. Leon Bloom, of 72 Rosemary Lane, has requested the assistance of my Bureau in addressing persistent bacterial contamination in his individual water supply well. Mr. Bloom has supplied me with background correspondence regarding his situation and the town' s attempts to identify the source of and correct the bacterial contamination. As you may recall from the correspondence, bacterial contamination of the individual water supplies at 72 and 80 Rosemary Lane first occurred in 1977. Today I contacted C. Fred Shaw, Assistant Director of Public Works for an update on the Town' s investigations. He indicated that no conclusion has been reached regarding the source of the bacterial contamination, although it does not appear to be due to sanitary wastewater. Mr. Shaw said that several recent analyses have shown no coliforms in the Bloom well. The Department does not currently have an adequate basis to issue a groundwater pollution abatement order under Section 22a-471 C.G.S. in this case. To an extent, the Town is now performing a portion of the investigation which would ordinarily be required under such an order. I would like to ensure that the Town' s investigations continue to move expeditiously in order to get Mr. Bloom off bottled water as soon as feasible. Please have Mr. Gantick update me as soon as the current investigations are complete and some conclusions have been drawn. Although this matter is primarily one for local resolution, I wanted to let you know of Mr. Bloom's contact and concern and our current posture. If this Department can be of assistance in leveraging a solution, please feel free to contact me at 566-2689. Sincerely, A Adr Freund, Chief D urea of Water Man t APF:zg cc: Ar. Leon Bloom RECEIVED r. Michael Gantick, Town of South Windsor r1 Ro V r71991 (Printed on Recycled Paper) Public ,,-iks 165 Capitol Avenue•Hartford,CT 06106 An Equal Opportunity Employer �.. June 24, 1991 REC�ivEO MEMORANDUM J UClbwdk www �t W0ft oar. TO: Michael J. Gantick, Director of Public Works RE: Rosemary Lane - Sanitary Sewer Infiltration Based upon television monitoring of the sanitary sewer lines in the area of Rosemary Lane and Berle Road, the Pollution Control Division has located five pipe joints and four lateral/main joints where there is groundwater infiltration. Pollution Control 's attention was first directed to this area when on April 6, 1991, a complaint of a sewer backup was received from the property owner of 80 Rosemary Lane. When Town employees responded, no backup was observed in the main line, nor within the house. Because the complainant spoke of water under pressure entering the house through the basement shower drain, the sump pump system was dye tested and there was found to be no cross connected between the sewer lateral and the foundation drain system. Soon after the inspection of April 6, 1991, the property owner at 72 Rosemary Lane expressed concern for the problem at 80 Rosemary Lane, and referred to an incident in 1977 when a sewer backup into the lateral serving 80 Rosemary caused his well to become polluted and non-potable. The Pollution Control Division has responded by making weekly inspections of the sanitary sewer in this area. This area has not been a problem in the past fourteen years, and to date, no blockages have been observed in the sewer line on Berle, Rosemary Lane or the two cross country lines. The Division did observe the start of a blockage on Lake Street on May 24, 1991. The blockage was the result of accumulation of grease. This matter will be studied more closely. It should be noted that there was no groundwater observed coming from the laterals at either, 72 or 80 Rosemary Lane. Well water samples were collected by the Town Sanitarian. over a period of several weeks, and the collection of samples will continue for an indefinite period of time. Some test results were negative, while other tests indicated the present of E. coli and/or total coliform. None of the test results confirmed the source of the contamination. The sewers within Berle Road, and the cross country line between Berle Road and Rosemary Lane were pressure tested on May 16, 1991; the pipe in these areas passed the test. w Rosemary Lane - Sanitary Sewer Infiltration June 24, 1991 Page 2 On May 20, 1991, the sewer lines within Berle Road, Rosemary Lane, and the cross country sewer lines between Berle and Rosemary and Rosemary and Doria Lane were inspected with a television camera. This inspection identified the aforementioned points of infiltration. Informational meetings were held on May 28 and June 11, 1991 with sewer contractor Howard Slatter and Robert Farrelly of the Jack Farrelly Co. to assist in the interpretation of the television video recordings and to discuss the particulars of truss pipe construction. Based upon the data collected to date, I recommend that the truss pipe be repaired in-place using a chemical grout (acry-lamide). One reason for this recommendation is cost and the other reason, is, that given the nature of truss pipe, there is a high probability that in the course of excavation and point repair, adjacent pipe segments will be damaged and the contractor will have to "chase" the problem. In terms of cost, the excavation and point repair of each pipe joint would be about $4,000 per location, or about $36,000 for the nine points of infiltration identified through television inspection. One other reason against recommending excavation and point repair is that it may not be effective given the nature of the double wall construction of truss pipe; the point of infiltration observed by television monitoring may, in fact, not be the point of water entry into the pipe because groundwater infiltration may pass some distance between the exterior and interior pipe walls. Two methods of in-place pipe repair were considered - inversion and curing of a resin-impregnated tube, and the use of acrylamide grout. The resin-impregnated tube alternative was eliminated for two reasons. The pipe appeared to be, generally, in excellent condition (20 years old) , and the present worth analysis did not justify this method of pipe rehabilitation based upon a cost of between $50 and $65 per linear foot; total project. costs estimates were $95,000 to $114,000. The second reason for not selecting the resin-impregnated tube was that several laterals in this wasteshed were observed to convey groundwater and, therefore, could not be temporarily used for storage purposes during the resin curing (18 hrs. ) process. The matter of these groundwater sources will be dealt with separately from the main line repair. The acrylamide grout alternative was selected because it was the most cost effective method of pipe repair in this instance. The chemical grout procedure offers the advantages of in-place repair, while providing a thorough sealing of the entire system regardless of the transmigration of groundwater between the inner and outer truss pipe walls. In this project, I recommend that every joint (158 joints) be sealed; this work can be accomplished at a cost of about $4,000 and will require two days to complete. Rosemary Lane - Sanitary Sewer Infiltration June 24, 1991 Page 3 I also recommend joint sealing in those sections of pipe that held a pressure test (3.0 psi , .5 psi drop). In review of the May 16, 1991 pressure test report, it appears that the contractor did not allow for the hydrostatic pressure outside the pipe; and therefore, chemical sealing the joints and retesting at 7.5 psi* will provide a greater assurance of water tightness in these areas. The procedure will involve the following steps: 1. Clean gravity pipe (Town) 2. Televise 3. Application of acrylamide grout 4. Pressure test each joint (7.5 psi) two minutes after application of grout. 5. Record process on video tape. The process of chemical grouting will involve the use of two liquids-acrylamide monomer and methylene Bis Acrylamide; the grout will form a gel when activated by triethanolamine and mixed with an initiator like ammonium persulfate. The internal repair unit is preceded into the pipe by a television camera that locates the joint and monitors the repair actively, Both units are remotely controlled. The repair unit has two end diaphragms that are inflatable and serve to isolate the joint for both sealing and pressure testing. A positive displacement pump forces the chemical grout into the opening; voids inside and outside the pipe are filled. The pre-gel viscosity of acrylamide is nearly that of water and therefore, is capable of penetrating small cracks and voids penetrated by groundwater. The acrylamide grout is chemically stable and the field experience (30 years) is that the acrylamide gel may be considered permanent. I will make myself available to discuss this matter more fully with you at your convenience. The Capital Projects account (I/I control) will be the source of funds for this project. C. F, e haw, Assistant Director of Public Works CFS:jh *average depth of sewer is 7 feet; start at 4.0 psi , add 3.5 psi or 1/2 psi per depth of sewer �P�oW N sE,` � F �C-C!! [� V! �� L w • O • D a • 9 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 °N�sox�co ` AREA CODE 203/644-2511 TO: Richard J. Sartor, Town Manager FROM: Thomas P. D'Auria, Chief Building Official DATE: July 27, 1981 SUBJECT: Lot 4A Rosemary Lane =_===xx=sxxxxxxx=axx=xsexoxxaxxoxxxxxxxxxxox�xxxxxxxxxoaxxxxxmxxx�x The Town of South Windsor has an easement for a storm drain and sanitary drain through the above captioned property. A residence is under construction presently with the southwest corner of the dwelling being within 1/8" of the easement. The overhang of the garage, at that corner, encroaches over the easement approximately 18". I have discussed this matter with Mr. Shattuck and Mr. Davies , and we agreed it would not cause a problem in the event the sewer lines had to be excavated. A letter from the owner absolving the Town from any liabilities will be required before any CO is issued; provided this meets with your approval. cc: Richard Shattuck A. Bowen Davies #47 M E M OR A N D U M To: Ed. Moniz, Collector of Revenue JAllan Young, Public Works Director From: Paul F. Talbot, Town Manager Date: May S, 1978 Subject: $48.00 Sewer Charge, Mr. Bloom, 72 Rosemary Ln. Mr. Bloom does not feel that he should pay the $48.00 sewer charge because of the -problems with the sewer lateral andthe contamination of his well. As Tax Collector what are the legal requirements for payment of the sewer charge and what recourse does the Town have for delinquent payments? As Director of Public Works can you verify whether or not Mr. Bloom was denied or prevented from using the public sewer system? Report on or before Monday iiay 8th, 4:00 P.M. 716 71 �14 AI . , a�QUt TOWN W TQA/ Hai r SOUTH WINDSOi , >r1NN. To Paul Talbot SAT ; ` J. SU Lane BJEGTr ; $8#121 ► u _APLDo Attacheds a cO flied PY Of the in ticAjre ; ppeecc P . xepQr bp 'I r. M�sseager f©llOvIng the r airs e:rfc� d on the;main line and . literal aA. fox .tea. .;. A !, i MEMORANDUM December 22, 1977 To: Allan S. Young, Director of Public Works Re: Inspection and Repairs to #72 Rosemary Lane Operations were started Monday, December 19, 1977. A portion of the subject lateral was exposed and cut off for visual inspection. The inspection showed that the pipe was laid with horizontal de- flection of (straight pipe) beyond any allowable limits and that the pipes did not seem joined at bell and spigot. A temporary repair was made for home use for the night. On Tuesday, December 20, 1977, the entire lateral was exposed and further inspection showed that an unknown substance was poured into the bells. The line was filled with water, and water exfiltrated at a joint directly below the existing 36" RCP storm drain. The entire lateral (from Y to site of previous testing by the State) was relaid with new PVC pipe and again filled with water. No leakage occurred or was visible, so the line was closed up and backfilled. Field observations are as follows: The running water observed by the T.V. camera (both in July and December) was undoubtedly due to faulty installation at the previously mentioned joint under the storm drain. This joint had no gasket recessed to the bell depth. The gasket was there, but not introduced into the bell. Also, the five (5) joints exposed showed that the rubber gaskets were almost at the face of the respective bells - primarily due to the extreme horizontal deflection. Also, some unknown sub- stance was either poured or packed into the bells. I believe this was done to hold the gaskets. One other note - I informed Mrs. Bloom that the sidewalk slabs removed during operations would be reset in the spring, if necessary, and that any disturbed loam areas would be taken care of at the same time. See attached sketches. Frank Messenger FM/ml cc: B. Page M. Stead ��'.��'' �r/) '�' .dam�•✓� �r � /�f n� !l ./ -'i• `� Gf f - \l e 72 zs:¢' � w9 ^SW I I j 1 eJ 1t C V AO N 8tq� y I 7-0-Wl't �-S-OMB v VindA-0t 0 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CO.NN. 06074 r�ds0* Co�'� AREA CODE 203/644-2511 December 7, 1977 Douglas S. Lloyd, M.D. Commissioner of Health State Department of Health 79 Elm Street Hartford, Ct. 06115 Dear Dr. Lloyd: The results of the low pressure test conducted by the Town of South Windsor Monday, December 5th on Rosemary Lane are as follows: 1. Leak 134' west of manhole sealed on December 5, 1977, (location indicated in red on attached plan). 2. Apparent excessive leak 284' west of manhole will be repaired immediately (location indicated in green). 3. Lateral infiltration at Leon Bloom greater now than in July of 1977. Low pressure test from station 5 + 40 to 8 + 35 confirmed closed circuit television inspection result. This area was low pressure tested even though not part of our agreement with the State as per our meeting on Monday, November 28th. The area designated . in blue will be excavated immediately. The Town of South Windsor did not agree to low pressure test within a 200 foot radius of the B1oom's well nor did the Town agree to low pressure test the sewer line from Rosemary Lane to Berle Road as indicated in your letter of December 2, 1977. Our agreement was to low pressure test from stations 8 + 35 to 5 + 00. However we did pressure test the line from station 5 + 40 in front of the Giannamore property to station 8 + 35, although not part of the agreement. Low pressure testing of the line running from Rosemary Lane to Berle Road is not necessary. . Closed circuit television indicated line to be intact, clean and no signs of infiltration or failure. Since it is the opinion of your Environmental Health Services Division that fluoroscein dye testing of septic systems adjacent to the Bloom property would not be conclusive, then there is no need for the Town to conduct a test that in the opinion of the State is of limited value. r Douglas S. Lloyd, M.D. Page 2 December 7, 1977 Dr. Curtis has a meeting scheduled with Mr. Wiggin for the purpose of dis- cussing on site sewage disposal systems on Berle Road. I will receive a report from Dr. Curtis on the results of the aforementioned meeting. When repairs of the sewer line are completed we will notify your office of the time and date of completion.. Very truly yours, TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR (At_)) Paul F. Talbot Town Manager PFT:ew enclosure cc: Mayor Bender Allan Young, Dir. of Public Works Leon Bloom a 1' A T F 1) E P A R T AI l: N T (> 1= If t -1 l_ T s� �IRE_ET o Il:\R'IFi>1;(a, 1:0N`dGC"I(i't''I 11611� C)FFICE OF COMMISSIONER December 2., 1977 Telephone; 566-2279 i Mr. Paul F. Talbot, Town Manager Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Dear Mr. Talbot: It is my understanding that the following points were agreed -to at the meeting held on November 28, 1977 'to decide what additional action would be necessary to determine the cause(s) of pollution to the well of Leon Bloom, 72 Rosemary Lane, South Windsor. 1. The sanitary sewer line serving Rosemary Lane, including the portion passing through the R. Cooper property that eventually connects with the Berle Road sanitary ePwe_r, is to be low pressure air tes a within a 200-foot radius o the Bloom well. Additionally, the Rosemary Lane sewer line between manholes 8 +35 and 5+00 is to be low pressure air tested. 2. The Environmental Health Services Division of this department does not con- sider fluoroscein dye testing of septic systems to be necessarily conclusive. We have no objection, however, if the town wishes to proceed in this direction. 3. Mr. David C. Wiggin, Director of the Environmental Health Services Division, will meet with Dr. Curtis to discuss further the matter of connecting to the sanitary sewer 'those homes in the Berle Road area that are presently served by septic systems. The extension of our original order expires today, December 1, 1977- In the in- terest of performing as complete and thorough an investigation as possible, I am extending the order. to December 15, 1977. I trust every effort will be made to complete testing by this date. We look forward -to your continued cooperation. Sincerely yours, 1�0+ 1. k, Kp Douglas S. Lloyd, M.D., M.P.H. Commissioner DSL/pdp / cc; Allan Young Director, Public Works William Dobbins, Sanitary Engineer State D.E.P. David C. Wiggin VIA CERTIFIED MAIL #924589 At STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION = :- STATE OFFICE BUILDING HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06115 October 11 , 1977 Mr. James Throwe, Chairman South Windsor Sewer Commission Town Hall 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 ' Re: Bloom-Cooper Well Contamination Rosemary Lane, South Windsor Dear Mr. Throwe: At the request of the State Health Department, we have investigated the probl-em at the Bloom and Cooper residences, #72 and #80 Rosemary Lane respect- ively. Our aim was to try to locate the source of pollution to the Bloom and Cooper residences knowing that the sewer system was blocked July 5, 1977 and that septic systems were located proximate to the wells. Our report is as follows: Scope of Investigation 1 . We spoke with Mr. Alan Young, South Windsor Director of Public Works. It was determined that the plans and specifications for the sewer system for the subject area (Oak Grove Acres) were never submitted to this department for review and approval as required under Section 25-26 of the General Statutes. Please notify Attorney Dennis and Manager Talbot of this require- ment. 2. We obtained "as-built" drawings of the storm and sanitary sewer systems in the subject area from the Town of South Windsor Engineering Department. 3. We conducted field investigations of the storm and sanitary sewer systems in and adjacent to the problem area. 4. We discussed the problem with Mr. & Mrs. B.loom and Mrs. Cooper. 5. We spoke with Mr. McClellan of the State Health Department and reviewed pertinent correspondence, reports, and laboratory analysis of the well water samples. 6. We contacted Mr. Reed Cote, the Blooms builder, to determine if the dwelling at #72 Rosemary Lane has a footing drain that discharges to the storm sewer system. ti -2 Mr. James Throwe, Chairman 41 1-South Windsor 'Sewer Commission October 11 , 1977 Observations & Conclusions 1 . We believe that the well contamination was directly related to the sewerage system stoppage. We concur with Mr. McClellans theory that the low nitrate, nitrite, and detergent concentrations in the contaminated wells was not indicative of long or short term pollution from a failing septic system. The fact that the Blooms, noticed the presence of color and odor in their drinking water two days prior to the sewage back-up into the Coopers basement, coupled with the extremely high coliform counts in the Blooms well shortly thereafter, further substantiates the theory of contamination due to the sewer system stoppage.. 2. Our field investigation of the Coopers footing drain system indicated that there is no obvious cross connection between it and their sanitary sewer house service lateral . We were later informed that this was previously determined by dye tests conducted by the State Health Department. 3. Mr. Cote told us that the Blooms had a footing drain that was connected to the 36" storm drain in front of their house. During our field investigation, we lamped the 36" storm drain. Vie did not observe a connection to the storm .drain adjacent to the front of the Bloom residence. We observed a low flow of sanitary sewage in the sanitary manhole upstream from the Bloom and Cooper residences, but observed a greater flow of relatively clear water in the sanitary manhole downstream from the residences. This leads us to believe that a cross connection between the Blooms footing drain and their sanitary sewer house service lateral is a distinct possibility. Furthermore, our field investigation determined that if there is a cross connection between the Blooms footing drain and their sanitary sewer service lateral , sewage could have backed up into the footing drain. This would have provided a more direct route for pollutants to enter the wells. 4. The main sewer lines in the problem area were planned to be installed at the absolute minimum slope as recommended by the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission design guides. According to the sewer profiles that we obtained from the Engineering Depart- ment, one reach of sewer in the problem area was installed at a slope of one half of the recommended minimum. Approval by this department of this design would be unlikely without addit- ional operation and maintenance assurances from the town. Recommendations 1 . That our findings regarding the absence of an underdrain outlet to the 36" storm sewer in front of the Bloom residence be verified by the Town. . .." -3- 'Mr. James Throwe, Chairman South Windsor Sewer Commission October 11 , 1977 2. If it is verified that there is no connection to the storm drain, then the Blooms sewer service lateral • should be excavated and exposed at the foundation of the house to determine if there is a cross connection. Another method for detecting a cross connection iA to expose the footing drain and "smoke" test the sanitary sewer line. If there is no cross connection, the sewer service lateral should be isolated from the main line and the house plumbing and tested hydrostatically or through the use of low pressure air. If a leak is detected_ , the Town owned portion of the service-)ateral should be isolated from the Blooms portion of the service lateral . Both portions should then be tested independently. 3. We feel that it is the Towns responsibility to ensure that all service con- nections to their sanitary sewer system are inspected and tested for leaks - when they are installed. 4. The cost of any repairs to the service lateral should be assumed by the owner of the portion in question. 5. If a direct physical cross connection is detected, it is the Blooms respon- sibility to have the systems separated. 6. We also recommend that the main line sewers in the problem area be tested with low pressure air to verify their integrity. 7. Since the majority of the aforementioned testing requires work within the street lines, we suggest that all testing efforts be conducted by the Town of South Windsor. We are quite sure that the Blooms will permit the Town to perform the portions of the testing that are required on their property. We would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this problem with you at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us at 566-5903 or 566-24og. Very truly yours, William C. Dobbing•, Jr. Sanitary Engineer` and WCD:DJR:jmr Donald J. Robisky cc: David Wiggin Sanitary Engineer Douglas Lloyd Leon Bloom Ronald Cooper MEMORANDUM January 4, 1978 To: G. Ted Ellis Re: Rosemary Lane Repair Costs 1. J. Farrelly should have another P.O. made out for the overages incurred. This P.O. was prepared as soon as we realized additional purchases were necessary. 2. I question the timeliness of finalizing this project as all restoration costs have not been determined, i.e. sidewalk repairs must be made. A an S Young ASY/ml / cc: Paul F. Talbot oMo from TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR TOWN HALL SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 TO Paul F. Talbot, Town Manager DATE Dec. 7, 1977 SUBJECT: The attached FOLD- - - Attached is the Inspector' s report on the sewer line investigations on Rosemary Lane. Per our conversation, we are proceeding to make the necessary repairs. Allan S. Young Dr. of Public Works f MEMORANDUM December 6, 1977 To: Allan .Young Re: T.V. viewing and air testing two (2) sections of Rosemary Lane On Monday, December 5, air testing, T.V. viewing and sealing was conducted on Rosemary Lane. Present during the operations were: . Mr. Bill Dobbins, D.E.P. Mr. Dave Tomey, State Health Dept. Mr. Daniel Savino, State Health Dept. The work was done by the Wethersfield Sweeping Service. Results were as follows: From M.H. Sta. 5 + 0 to (8 + 35 = 2 + 95) (E. to W. ) 134' from M.H. - water bubbling in at bottom of pipe joint - this was sealed. 284' from M.H. - Lateral to "Parcel G" leaks excessively - has to be repaired. 285' from M.H. - broken pipe - water pouring in - has to be repaired. From M.H. 5 + 40 to 2 + 95 = 8 + 35 (W. to E. ) 192' from M.H. (Bloom lateral) leaking more now than last July - has to be repaired. Also, broken piece of pipe at 3 o'clock opposite lateral. These findings are of a nature that have to be taken care of immediately. See enclosed approximate costs. One other note, the manhold cover was removed on Rosemary at Sta. 5 + 0 to 2 + 0 (end) and initially, very little running water was observed. However, later during operations, water build-up moved plug at M.H. Sta: 5 + 0 and water came to top of brick invert work. No time was taken today to determine the cause, but this should be looked into. . There was only one house in this area that could have introduced water, so it seems that conditions may be more involved. The State also wants the easement Section (442' ) to be T.V. , but with no laterals here, an air tepC would be fficient. Frank Messenger 1 cc: B. ` Page Enclosure j i i i # � ' � i I f � i i � I � I ! i i i � � 1 t j i I j t � � n\ (�4 -� � � � � j � '� � � � '. :, i � I I _ ��V VY �// ��� �`�` fro;, ��, �r ��` -- j '� i � � r i �� �,, � �' v, ., � .. �. ti fi r Y � „r 00. 44 �� 0 cJ _ f f Ap, 1�141, Xo -- t= - 7r, ! . - � �.I r b �,/„� / 'RIB:� 1 i.�/ i �+.. .�...• �{• N 6.,� ... ..- R J r ' . S'hA 'I' I'; O1 i ' O .NN K ('TI (; l1T DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTF ION STATE OFFICE BUILDING HARTFORD, C.ONNECTICUT 06115 December 7, 1971 Town of South Windsor Sewer Convii ss iun 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Attention: Mr. James Throwe, Chairman Re: Rosemary Lane Sanitary Sewers Gentlemen: On Monday December 5, 1977, I met with representatives of the Town of South Windsor and the State Health Department. We observed while a firm engaged by the Town performed leakage tests and televised inspection of two reaches of 8" diameter sanitary sewer proximate to the problem area. The test results, our observations, and our recommendations are included in the attached report. It is expected that the Town will initiate prompt remedial action as recommended. If you have any questions, please do not hestiate to contact me at 566-5903. Very truly yours, William C. Dobbing, Jr. Sanitary Engineer Water Compliance WCD:jmr Attachment cc: Elinor Kravet, Health Dept. David Wiggin, Health Dept. Paul Talbot, Town Manager Allan Young, Director of Public Works Leon Bloom y • 16-pol'I u( !oil 'cin1 Ic"'I itiq c,l Pol I i(,n•1 of the Municipal Sewer :>ystem, Rosemary Lane, "OtiLl) Wi lld-ml , C t r Present: Name Ac enc W. Dul)t)i nq DLP — Wo Lur Cuinp l i.ince D. Savino State Health Dept. A. Duzzetti State Health Dept. D. Tomey State Health Dept. F. Messenger Town of South Windsor Testing and Inspection performed by: Commercial Pipe Cleaning, Wethersfield Conn. Description of Tests: Television inspection and pressure tests on two reaches of 8" diameter live sanitary sewer on Rosemary Lane. The total length of sewer that was tested totaled approximately 560 linear feet. Inspection and testing consisted of drawing the television camera foll-owed by a packer head through the reaches of sewer. The television camera provided a means for visual observation of the condition of the sewer while the packer head was used to pressure test each joint. The packer head was also used to pressure grout any leaking joints that were encount— ered. All joints Were pressure tested by introducing liquid into the annulus between the inflated packer head glands and raising the pressure to 15 psi . Any joint that failed to hold 15 psi was sealed using AM-9 chem— ical grout. Observations The following defects were determined from pressure tests and visual observations. 1 . A leaking joint was observed and repaired. 2. Visibly broken pipe was observed in two places. 3. Two improper lateral connections were observed leaking groundwater into the system. (See attached sketch) T 4. Infiltration into the mainline scwcr from the leaks in and around the Bloom lateral connection was estimated by the contractor to he approximaLely 10 gallons per minute. Conclusions It appears that the mainline sewer was properly constructed. Its intcctrity wa: compromised by th(- uno of imprnpor con:tructio>n technictur-; to make connections for service laterals. During the sewer stoppage in July, sewage was observed at a height of approximately 6' above the elevation of Blooms service lateral connection. This condition most probably enabled sewage to exfiltrate from the sewer system, thus introducing pollutant indicators similar to those found in the Blooms water supply into the groundwater. The distance from the break at the Blooms connection to their well is approximately 1651 . Given the proper subsurface conditions, it is possible that the sewer stoppage and the resulting sewage backup was the cause of the water supply contamination. Recommendations That Lhe Town of SouLh Windsor itrwriediately repair Lhe breakd in the sewer line to restore the integrity of the system; and, That the Town conscientously employ an effective inspection and maintenance program to prevent a reoccurence of the problem. i I _I approx. well = � ocatiorj_ Coo e loom _ r Empty Lot r I Peck ' i LeaO'n ervi ce ' ate t`a i and 'Wrok n Pipe : i ]92'+ 85 -- + _ L- f I -. n9 ry ce +Lateral L Z:::ELeat � ►ut 4' L]-eaiBroke Q. peI I Giannamore Goldstein Empty Lot Kelley I 17 NOT TO SU I E OTb0 9t, reo 10V 00 a3SS3IR-13JJr3-1 f7_ 1 .2% Gt X i HOM 3H1, 01 9 X �"/� :'� 'p`i t� � ��� � •�' tIIti�1. �s�¢{,+o��� '+,CT N ? '�,`"`-0g ,d}. --"ram wSa4ir��� €"">� yf'��'tX _ 's ` �f� a(..- � - J }.g � fi - _ �; it e5 � t sy _. _I 3t� ,`a�� ....,dew �sr�� w, ro vY g•�+F ,} ':. ;�r>., •:s a` 4 h et r, "r ,S+y�• , 'y��� �.•a v r3 n•t a-: L,. � y � - "°t ..- • „��' .z.� j•- �x.,,�� k'�e i.. f *'��A�s ,i.� G• : .•e:� r� �{� ,£� ,�_ ;�x}+ ,Ry'':. 4 :'t v _ �r ra-t`'� � .gyp- ,u ,�� '��y� ,i •j 4i � .X ! e`tom'tt �•A+ '�-" s `� s :k tit .>�� -- r K�sr � r' 2 r;. -..r• x•�F',.. €`- rm ,�t7 '� �f� ��ji{ity#s�t r�Y'•e.1"' �� ' r � b; R ,t �• "} kr{f T t r ; rhr,� - �� ,� A :r.,Ssgy 4.+•t - }" �¢ef �� € �`��-s. ��. ..� ����'x4M 1��m�C ��rd•�e ;�� ��.��,� `T.�ru �5 A a� * + rn •.•�'�': ;��� �t � c� � �j�l! �:,t 4'f.'� " ',#' "'. �} r•� �.�• Z , a4 '`� 9C�f' L �. 1e4 `YY" .:�r � sy-.•-"O�- r s � r?kd.:.; I,�.} -,°��'e" �$� aal�,;�� �'§.t,>�"t fk✓-, J� - r. 'arc ::? .��.1 _ ,f', F s y4 :v. e fi� r. ,' a,?R'' ,. * x �s - _.•.y t fifi"q �i *,iDMr L�r.:.. •. •-_. �._ -.. Jf`:; ..�t �y a-�s''f���i 't ���er��'i�`,?st'} - I i�"� �s-k,� ne.x=� _ xr,ja.,d .2�.r�.#. <ry .�. Y •"€h at>-s�_� '"��,�-.;y.sF a d.--. tcE'._ 8° _�q `. '} a 7 -: y ��, 8�t e T r.r• >• ,�}.[ ,:t-:r,io; "•s # :b(?#� e,'.+ ��r F�k}e�"af��x '2 •Y` �� l f'{'y R•s ,. �t��.h?s- d+•r �],_. {`� ..� K .A> "t i y,.•a.- � 'L• -.� q Lii<ti <P e� xY''� t �t'S'�•'J d�+r4 .3X�?'a"'� t,�:'y 3r , r aa< ,� 7,4 } Y�w s � .. "sl�,� r? !' A v :. "d��? h •�3* s]k. ! s aE '�? s r. .+ �i•� x Y �r 'tr' 43;c<£ e`M :P, ,� ``� sI•r ry t pax, -t,y' kr. xrc'4arFFr: �:. r'�?in t s �,� �+t�� •e t`�'f i:� "'s' _ ' k�'t t , t` t ±� a,:.* + sk ? r. .aY:4 S'v,"`k f.r' t�` < t '`.*&ti.:•f'`Y:. #',.'s e u,r t°.,.. r {.. y s �T Y`j In '�i�t s � •�Y .} � � :;�. r --r,. f �}•� rxw.�a R a` ' �`i�'.r �.yr �,� .:�d y�5 d r,. #x i '�' bef.�` � ��' ��, { rGS s, • 'st^.a?'+} .•£, .;`l t. .;e,7r: a''.fii' i3��..+p�par,t^ 'y'f, a 3 _ Y 'r'Y x'n"'4 ,.Y i,4 wC$f i A Ty a le. N,i1•%( y, .oE T tq i^'4� ..5�j'� .fir1���*�� � x s�T"'a �•F,._ t �� h.. �fF � �r#fir c�''v'k -'L to at`Y# :s�' 'i� i y ;(E 3't�h��'f'# -1 •as.' C t 'Y A t � ��ie. '1+•7' � g� ;-.: q �{ *z� �a �,• .�, � ��*x �;w����` � �.,�-�, s,,; �� h '. � ?�' {'��W� ;� i.. >:`� "sa L+�; +rvt As �.s. its,,(( r3� 'Sr,} z, � J.•.. T ,s J `3 ...4> .i+Y tH t"��3��� r � f` { t � �.I•• k-1. 4$� M:y l i' - f �� _ ��.. f � k y ��L�r 9 M1�S � �• ,� �, ""��° 'k•� 'Y+ n � r '' .N.. t�eY, x.`��ai '�'�t+aa�•. tt, i'',y i s �.¢t- �r h � ;3 ','y � r�`';y=r"e`�3 �I •�". # > } L 5' t2• C •r .''� .'".P sex ia h � Via+ 4�"• �r yy�r h p_ � ��� r t L�4 _.� � e r `h•.ti i �`�*C F � Y f+�' a y..r?'�?�,` �n�*y, K��i'�..-y�Tt si.a�"�yr U yt �.j��•' !y( ��-' ,�, ."5f .� ����7 x 7'�:E��as a: � -t �i Cam' 'T .e+'�,� y � .`�:� e� er*-• ,�'�, �:, „ +a�.t�y,�"�' #vi 7Tc' ¢.', ri= aY nEr s •'4 s �� ` 7.r.. ,-� 3y iRi ..a1 -tG.. ��:.'. F r z f�:r �, -,R d t �1y 5�'C'aPS�',��• -:'''��+. � � Se '. �". oi �t :�-•y q � 't t� .. Y z - •� l �1��L+f�Y 3` <s�a, �r 49 y �:r i � : �, r� �. '�-- '� �•x r � •cF, �a� � `�: ;; � 3 `` R '�.e`�; r��,--+ x ,+ 2,r�,� t ti .'� a. ~ �- ie y ��.=� Fr 1 Ki §k -�Y".,i' "��a fiz1+j r& ,; r �u.-d y� 3.r�1'liyS�Yy.��.]�r2� 4• ,;f.� '� �y dj�h+�r x�;"- � � -''i-' ;� �i�s}'.•. r .��` ..r.n&��;ti+a � `Z r � -: �3`,�t,7:a•4h"� z• w�t %� � "ice.✓ :'4..- '- ¢a -e k '-i .wsRR # c t „3 ✓sr :. u 4.± K .wwt .='' #£3'.�'"'` aaA ",'Y \C.4 f ; n �4�" " 'J: `' :A 1 .� L '"sa ' � Y'Si'r� $ Yr` .�:- ' f ,$ j E u^L#.• m: ,�' a_ ._:a,� } �'F' t 4 '`• e '` i k a. is �•^�hr �Fi- ,,'" �t4� .f�:. � �� #y .i7.t }��'G:,_.i� '`�N- �.+ x+� '§ x a�.� -.. '• � y��'- ���...; � y�� � � '.s <y� ; '. .ee,2'••'a AW- .' 's`} �'< �`• $ !': a!_yi a y t j t>1 '-: ry#C �2•' '` 5 TY Sf.3 aJ"- ftf y+ A 9 b�h, ,'1 .1-�{ � � � . -74 -qt ➢ >� �*'�qb'6 e[, �� >' f t��x � D S _�ci k +gss..�`. .,� .: eurf�;.« .�� .3i`srn -;_ K �8 �� bed• a'• 7`�I 2�... may. 4A d-.. �? .k..fy > tt Y.,?.�✓�7���'".r'Y Sft+T"a _�,y .�o�t ..'fir C ik y r; htf„r a# y?C -��„ �.,�.t•¢ _«' ,.a`r3> a "!��'i:�+'�4-� r„r.'r y *h .<a-�" }d-i i.__�."'_,y.�- "`• - "' {Y as- _ i<+ " r,y r„ ,t t"nfi t, v •G.L., �+Ta, s:- iiS: � rt �•,t A '� '�,.� w.. ;�i$. s:, �. 4�r� ����, � r s �sZ' i r ?q,•Ya .,� _.:''a•c - � t:. ri' •ask � axt � il, >...........� �z��.q, t�. =- •tt' .'3"v'a : c���'a; � "�# m •sf _d��. ` '�° Via.. l9fa 'attf �3#r _- �� �� t_�., �.. yz��,., W' ,15 't'�YY.'j x ,y-, '� 'w 41 "y5' x4 i,- :.«• yv, - ` n' ` l+r'� >. .'�2j•'� 4Y:-*F4 3...:y 4..;,' r :.a.- 'f�4�' S, fie5'-_ C4s:�`���'_ t #/' '' -- a � E. �.�, a`'t �a y $i rK , rN 1' t � Yr .'r .s� <,x S -�?e .'�'��3�:. �� - � u33� �, �7r • � MY�� ' .'K! �� .af t ^iF ',�'" FS. •�:? � � �':.: _ yye�t.� fy, #� t �, ,Xi:. g`_" ,Y i� � � ' ; ( >•.y._. a� - � p, .� � `. � L§„ "' "`if Y,£ Q'� § �'�,�e,�,f{.,� 3l� T`� � _-,�i.-sc•.-# � rt+ ,fir ��' pr K- 7 �iL`3+.f•.r���J'F��.�F`c�`#.`�1>'��� _ � ..,'<Y �.,`Y' r=.. gY 'f F`i.s »"'� 4. "; . :?v �." F r 1 5�= S" awe!� �t Es•-s �?r y - 6 • Y 1.- 4� kJ 3^' -xd� � a3Y.Fa''r-'ie kt ,>�>. 'd' `� a F _-.. .._ ..".�1S°` r.2,C" .,w X.. 4.r3• ....� Fs"r,� .vak-.. ., �. - .+�r k :,3'..xM��'�`,-^ v �'32 :r�.. ..� # S ••x 4 ri-. 'r>:T.,�, 'b��i��A. `r.1�r r� rr This Letter Sent To; Mr. & Mrs. Richard Kelley 49 Rosemary Lane Mr. & Mrs. Victor Goldstein 73 Rosemary Lane Mr. & Mrs. R. Giannamore 87 Rosemary Lane Mr. & Mrs. Ronald Cooper 80 Rosemary Lane Mr. & Mrs. Leon Bloom 72 Rosemary Lane Mr. & Mrs. Robert D. Peck 48 Rosemary Lane s ��OWN SFq� 0-Ye S /' 1/ t�� O a7-own� U a ti o V 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 SOR•CO AREA CODE 203/644-2511 On Monday, December 5, 1977, the Town will be testing the sanitary sewer line in Rosemary Lane. In order to accomplish this test, the line must be blocked; therefore, we are requesting that you do not .use your water between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. on that day. If you wish further information, please contact me at 644-2511, Ext. 22. Very truly yours, TOWN OF -SOUTH WINDSOR Lester A. Braddock Senior Engineering Inspector LAB:prb VIE STATE DEPARTI1E ,NT OF HEALTH 79 Emi S'fREE7' H,\}T1`0P 1), CONNE-1-FICUT Ohl lc' OFFICE Or COMMISSIONER November 9, 1977 566-2279 CERTIFIED NO. 924705 Mr. Paul F. Talbot, Town Manager Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Dear Mr. Talbot: This is in response to-a telephone message from Town AttorneyThomas G. Dennis on November 1, 1977, and confirmed by a letter dated November 2, 1977, from Allan S. Young, Director of Public Works, requesting extension of the com- pletion date of my order to abate the nuisance and cause to be removed the filth with regard to the contaminated well supplies of Leon Bloom and Ronald Cooper on Rosemary Lane in South.Windsor. The town of" South Windsor has made progress in following through on reccmmenda- tions (1) through (7) concerning the street sewers and house sewer connections outlined in a letter dated October 11, 1977, from the Department of Environ- mental Protection and addressed to Mr. James Throwe, Chairman, South Windsor Sewer Commission. In a telephone call with David C. Wiggin of this office, Mr. Young pointed out there were other potential sources of pollution in the area, including two subsurface sewage disposal systems to the rear, of the Bloom and Cooper properties. This order is therefore amended to include the town taking .steps to have these two houses connected to the public sewer. This could be done by the town director of health under Section 19-13-B20b(a) of the public health code or by the Sewer Commission under Section 7-257 of the General Statutes. With this amendment and the provision that the town will continue to check the public sewers, I am granting a thirty day extension of the order for abating the nuisance from November 1, --1977 to December 1, 1977. Sincerely yours, f � Douglas S. Lloyd, M.D. Commissioner DSLIDC''vTlb .Cc: Asst. Atty.-General Richard ..Lynch (�7 i kept. of Environmental Protection i (Water Compliance) ; zt`f,Eu i;`� sr�r�; 4:. IUait f� SOWN Sf44 CO x F / L/U/! v V/ �../-V 1 ,. a 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 01 -co AREA CODE 203/644-2511 November 2, 1977 Mr. David Wiggin, Director Division of Environmental Health State Department of Health 79 Elm Street Hartford, Connecticut Dear Mr. Wiggin: Re: State Health Commissioner' s Order to Remove Filth on Rosemary Lane The Town of South Windsor is hereby requesting an extension to the order to remove filth from Rosemary Lane properties, until December 1, 1977. The Town, in cooperation with the Department of Environmental Protection, is in the process of following through on recommendations (1) through (7) outlined in a letter dated October 11, 1977, and addressed to Mr. James Throwe, Chairman, South Windsor Sewer Commission. •. This work cannot be completed and properly evaluated within the original ti.rrieframe. Very truly yours, VTOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR Allan S. Youn fector o P is Works ASY:prb cc: Paul F. Talbot, Town Manager Thomas G. Dennis, Town Attorney James Throwe, Chairman, Sewer Comm. William C. Dobbing, DEP r MEMORANDUM November 4, 1977 To: File Re: Rosemary Lane The Town received an order to remove filth from the Bloom well contaminated on Rosemary Lane. In a letter dated October 11, 1977 from Messrs. Dobbing and Robisky of the State Department of Environmental Protection, recommendations were forwarded to provide a systematic approach to comply with the order. Recommendation #$1 was to investigate the existence of an under- drain outlet to the storm sewer in the street. On Wednesday, October 26, 1977, Bruce Peaslee and Tim Friend of our Pollution Control Division made a field investigation and located the footing drain connection to the storm sewer. To further verify that no cross connection between the sanitary sewer lateral and the footing drain existed--on Monday, October 31, 1977, a Town Public Works crew (under the direction of Mr. Cable, Foreman) excavated the sanitary sewer lateral in the area where cross connection would be made. No cross connection was found, and the lateral itself was found to be intact with no possible way to contaminate the footing drain. This process was witnessed by Mr. Dobbing of DEP, Mr. Robisky of DEP, Mr. Savino and another gentleman from the State Department of Health. To further continue the investigation--on Wednesday, November 2, 1977, a Public Works crew (again under the direction of Mr. Cable) excavated the lateral at the street line. A. plug was installed and the sanitary sewer lateral was tested, under pressure, from the house to the street line. This test indicated the lateral was intact, and showed no signs of exfiltration. This test was witnessed by Mr. Dobbing and Mr. Robisky of DEP. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - t ► Memorandum Re: Rosemary Lane Page 2 November 4, 1977 The testing of the lateral indicates to me that the sanitary sewer system is intact. The entire street sewer system was investigated by visual field inspection via closed-circuit television, and showed no signs of any major break--or any problem that would cause pollution to groundwater sources. Furthermore, the house lateral from the street line to the main, even if it were to show breakage, is far in excess of the 75-foot proximity requirements of the DEP. This whole investigation, coordinated by the DEP, has been based on the assumption that the sanitary sewer was the source. It is my opinion that DEP should turn their investigations toward alternate sources; i.e. , septic tanks, etc. Allan S. Young Director of Public Works ASY:prb cc: Paul F. Talbot Thomas G. Dennis James Throwe w - THE GONECTICUT WATER COMPANY NORTHERN DIVISIOJ: 25 NORTH ROAD 4�w�-161 WAREHOUSE POINT, CONN88,TEL.203-623-3354 A SUBSIDIARY OF CONNECTICUT WATER SERVICE, INC. August 19, 1977 Mr. Paul Talbot Town Manager South Windsor Town Hall 1540 Sullivan Avenue _— South Windsor, Con7RE: Rosemary Lane Area - Water Main Extension South Windsor, Conn. Dear Mr. Talbot: At the request of the town engineering department, we have investigated the possibility of extending our present water main on Lake Road to service 20 possible customers located on Rosemary Lane, Christine Road, and Berle Road. The distance involved is estimated to be 51001 , using an existing easement from Doria Lane to Rosemary Lane. The main extension would start at Lake Road go down Grace Road for a distance of 300'+,. then down Ash Road for a distance of 1200'+, then through the Doria Lane Easement for a distance of 500'+, then Rosemary Lane for a distance of 1300'+, then Christine Road _ for a distance of 450'+,. then Berle Road for a distance of 19001+ for an estimated total footage of 51001 . This proposed main extension would service all the people who signed the petition, a total of 20 services The cost of this main extension is estimated to be $100,171.30, which includes paving replacement, unsuitable materials, also ledge. The cost of service installation is not included This cost is $329.70 per service, main to curb only, plus pavement replacement. The use of Doria Lane Easement is the shortest possible way to service this proposed area. This easement is still in question as to the legal answer if the water company will be able to install the water main in this easement, and if there is room between the sanitary line and the storm drain. The engineering department also requested that I give you an estimate to service the 5 lots which have immediate problems with their existing water, which are located on Rosemary Lane. The footage of pipe to service this area is estimated to be 2550' and the estimated cost to make this installation is $45,866.61. Mr. Paul Talbot - 2 - A. L. Tarnowicz Town Mgr. The Connecticut Water Co. Town of South Windsor RE: Rosemary Lane Area As listed on previous page, this estimate does not include the service installation cost, which is $329.70 for each service main to curb with pavement replacement as an additional cost when the job is completed. Enclosed for your review is a copy of our main extension regulation concerning this type of main extension, which is the Refundable Advance Payment Plan. If you should have any questions on these estimates, please give me a call at this number, 623-3354. r, 0-1 L. Tarnowicz .DIVISION MANAGER THE CONNECTICUT [HATER COMPANY ALT/kj 1 ENCLOSURE COMPANY: MAIN EXTENSION REGULATIONS REFUNDABLE ADVANCE PAYMENT PLAN As approved by the Public Utilities Commission, effective December 29, 1970_ FOR INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS OF CUSTOMERS, REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENTS AND SUB-DIVISIONS When the Company determines, in accordance with the guarantee rate on file with the Public Utilities Commission, that the estimated revenues from the requested main extension will be insufficient to cover all operating expenses and to support the investment by the Company, the Company will extend its mains under the fol- lowing conditions: 1. Applicants under this plan shall enter into a Customers Advance for Construc- tion Agreement with the Company, hereinafter called the Agreement, which shall require the customer to pay in advance to the Company an amount equal to the entire estimated cost, as determined by the Company, subject to the conditions in this plan. The estimated cost shall include the cost of service connections main to curb, excavation, pipe and fittings, road repaving, rock removal, replacement of unsuitable bedding and backfill material, inspection, and all other costs related to the job. Said estimated cost shall be adjusted to actual cost as soon as practicable after completion of the job, and the advance amount shall be adjusted accordingly. 2. Diameters and types of pipe and fittings used in main extensions shall be determined and supplied by the Company. Pipe shall normally be no less than 8 inches in diameter. If it is necessary to install pipe larger than 8 inches in diameter to satisfy applicant's requirements, the applicant shall pay for the entire installation cost. If the Company elects for other reasons to install pipe which is greater than 8 inches in diameter, all costs in excess of the cost to lay 8-inch main shall be borne by the Company. 3. If a main extension requires additional facilities, such as standpipes and booster pumping stations, and such facilities are not necessary to benefit the existing system as a whole, the cost of such facilities will be included in the water main extension contract. If such facilities are installed larger than required to serve the extension, the Company shall pay the cost of the excess capacity. 4. Applicants must furnish the Company with a map drawn to scale showing layout of proposed roads and houses, and must have filed a similar map with the Town Clerk. Before a main extension is undertaken, roads must have permanent grades established, must have been approved by the proper public authority, and buildings must have been started. 5. Applicants must provide when necessary, free of cost to the Company, a right of way or easement satisfactory to the Company, allowing it to install, maintain, . extend and replace mains and other necessary facilities and make connection there- to. i 6. All facilities shall be constructed in accordance with Company standard specifi- cations and in accordance with special specifications and plans for the particular extension. All pipe shall have 5 feet of cover from top of pipe to finished grade, proper bedding and suitable backfill. Construction prices shall be as quoted to the Company by its contractor or contractors. The Company shall inspect and supervise the work. f` 7. The main extension and related service connections and other plant- ex- clusive of the curb box shall be the property of the Company. The curb box shall be the property of the Owner and he shall be liable for its maintenance, its proper grade and any legal claims which may arise. 8. If property to be supplied by a main extension is at such an elevation that, ' in the opinion of the Company, adequate pressure cannot be furnished at all.times, the applicant may be obliged to execute a limited service agreement, to be recorded in the Land Records of the municipality in which-the property is situated. I I 9. Applicants desiring to attach to a main already under contract and within 15 years of the date the contract was executed may be required to pay the Company an amount which in the judgment of the Company represents their equitable shares of any original prepayment, less refunds. Such amount will be refunded to the original Depositors. j 10. The Company will make a refund to the applicant for each new metered service connected to the main within a period of fifteen (15) years from date of advance payment, the combined refunds in no case to exceed the advance deposit. The refund will be at the Refund Rate on file with the Public Utilities Commission. Refunds will be payable at the expiration of one year after the date of execution of the Agreement, and annually thereafter so long as the contract is in force and the other terms are complied with. 11. The Agreement shall prevail until: a) the end of fifteen (15) years from the date of execution of the Agreement; or b) refunds equal the advance deposit, which- _ ever occurs first. 12. Extensions designed to serve developments or areas which may be located considerable distances from the Company's existing mains will be considered sep- arately on their own merits. The Company reserves the right to decline to under- take extensions which in its judgment would not be in the best interest of the Company or the community to be served. The Company also reserves the right to ; make modified proposals, subject to approval of the Public Utilities Commission, to suit other special circumstances. 0 Q 01 40 N SF, Cn 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 f t°SOR�O� AREA CODE 203/644-2511 • August 19, 1977 Paul F. Talbot, Town Manager Town, of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, Ct. 06074 Dear Paul: You have requested my advice as to whether the Town can levy assessments against the owners of property which abuts a water main installed at Town expense, prior to the time when said property owner connects to the water main. Prior to 1973, §7-137c of the General Statutes provided in pertinent part as follows : "Any municipality may appropriate funds to extend or cause to have extended water mains (a) into areas to be used for industrial or com- mercial purposes or partly for industrial or . commercial purposes and partly for residential purposes, or (b) into residential areas or into areas zoned for residential use. Each owner of property which abuts such main shall, upon making use of such main, reimburse the municipality- m-s proportionate s are, to be determined by such rule as the municipality by ordinance adopts. " (Emphasis added) In 1973 the legislature passed P.A. 73-446 which amends §7-137c so that the same now reads as follows: "Notwithstanding the provisions of any special act each owner of property which abuts such main shall reimburse the municipality his proportionate share, at such time and by such rule as the munici- pality by or finance determines, " added) (Emphasis f .Paul F. Talbot, Town Manager Page Two August 19, 1977 This amendment to the Statute now makes it possible for the Town to levy assessments against property owners whose properties are serviced by a water main regardless of whether they connect to that main. Accordingly, if the Town appropriates funds to install a water main in the Rosemary Lane area, it is my opinion that the Council can, by ordinance, levy an assess- ment against all owners whose property abuts -said main, immediately upon completion of installation of the main, and regardless of whether said property owners connec to the main. V trul yours f THO S G. DENNIS Town Attorney TGD:lhm r a; ,4 0 4 j , y co, MFRe,q � AAA ���yFRs�po eok9 4PSF9�, oho yoy� •c�^'ti S29 0S7 gyQ,��ss 4D, s283 og iti o&P ►r � C"�s r 'COMMERCIAL PIPE SERVICE P.O. 80%93 WETHERSFIELD,CONN.06109 TELEPHONE: 529 5283 Date \ T Name , Address IN OUT �U IN OUT IN OUT �L 1 Total Hours Signature CONNECTICUT WATER COMPANY POSSIBLE EXTENSION (Rosemary Lane Area) ALTERNATE I Grace Road to Ash Road, through Parcel 26 on Ash and Parcel 62 on Rosemary Lane, then along Rosemary to serve Parcel 67. 2,000 l. f. at $20/ft. = $40,000. Need Easement over lot on Ash Road and the remaining Prestileo lot on Christine Lane. ALTERNATE II Grace Road to Ash Road to Doria Lane and through Easement on Parcel 58 to Rosemary Lane. 1, 950 l. f. at $20/ft. = $39, 000 - plus 500 l. f.± on Rosemary at $20/ft. _ $10,000 Total $49,000 ALTERNATE III Lake Street to Doria Lane, through Easement on Parcel 58, to Rosemary Lane. 2, 000 l. f. at $20/ft. _ $40,000 - plus 500 l. f.± on Rosemary Lane at $20/ft. _ $10, 000 Total $50,000 ALTERNATE IV Lake Street to Abbe Road Ext. to Rosemary Lane to Parcel 64. 3,800 ft. at $20/ft. _ $76,000 MEMORANDUM July 25, 1977 To: Paul F. Talbot Town Manager Re: Rosemary Lane - Well Problems Attached please find information regarding the well problems at ¢#72 and ##80 Rosemary Lane. As you are aware, the Town's Public Works Department has been working with the State Health Department on this problem. STATUS The Town has completed its study regarding the condition of the sanitary sewer and find that there exists no signs of breaks or failures which would cause a contamination of wells or ground- water in the area. The State Health Department indicates that, barring any additional information, they agree with our conclusion. The house laterat at #72 Rosemary Lane (Bloom) shows signs of excessive infiltration, and the owner has been informed and asked to make the necessary repairs--to date he has not done SO. HEALTH DEPARTMENT COMMENTS 1. The nitrates in the wells indicate that contamination was by a one shot exposure. 2. The fact that the wells recontaminated after chlorination, and subsequent to sewer cleaning, indicates the probability of a source other than sanitary sewers. . 3. They are pursuing the adequacy of well construction with the well installed as they raised some questions regarding proper ventilation of the wells. 4. The ledge contours could be conducive to contamination from failed septic tank systems and leaching fields. A. field investigation indicates however, no signs of septic system failures in the area. • Memorandum Re: Rosemary Lane - Well. Problems Page 2 July 25, 1977 5. Ground water elevations and depth of the wells (greater than 100 feet) rule out runoff sources, unless well casings are damaged, field investigations show no irregularities in the well casing. CONTINUED INVESTIGATIONS 1. The Health Department intends to retest the wells on Monday, July 25, to see if any pattern of levels of contamination are prevalent. 2. Mr. Bloom' s lateral must be repaired, as it exists as a potential source of contamination. 3 . Subsequent to repair of Mr. Bloom' s lateral, and if contamination continues, the Town will assist the State Health Department by digging test pits between the wells and septic tanks to ascertain ifeffluent is directed towards the wells. 4. If so, then the homeowners which abut Messrs. Cooper and Bloom, which are on septic tanks, will be directed to connect to the existing sanitary sewer. CONCLUSIONS The State Health Department indicates that the next action necessary is the repair of Bloom' s lateral. Mr. Bloom has been informed of this and also the fact that if the break is between the street line and his residence, then he must assume the expense; if the break is on Town property, then the Town will assume the expense for repairs. It should be understood that the investigation is under the direction of the State Health Department in the absence of local health officials; and other than the study of the Town-owned sanitary sewer, the Town is not directing field investigations. We are, of course, assisting the State in any way possible to resolve this problem. I will continue to keep you informed of the status of this problem. Allan S. Young ASYsprb Director of Public Works Attmts. ROSEMARY LANE WELL CONTAMINATION ADDENDA: The cost of installing a water main to service Rosemary Lane would be approximately $75,000. I would recommend that area residents interested in water lines being installed circulate a petition and request a hearing. The .Town could elect to install the waterline for health reasons and would incur the construction assessments directly. A caveat would be attached to each property abutting the water main, and the Town collects at the original installation rate prior to the owner connecting, and would eventually recoup its expenses. 'Allan S. Young Director of Public Works i • L MEMORANDUM July 22, 1977 To: Allan S. Young Re Sanitary Sewer T.V. - Rosemary Lane On Friday, July 15, 1977, we commenced with the viewing of the sewer main on Rosemary Lane (from easement to Berle Road, and on Berle Road, easterly, to the end) with the following visual conclusions: Rosemary Lane - Lots 4a and 5 to Lots 9-10 (280 '±) . There were stones in the line, and camera was removed once, due to debris in front of camera eye. The westerly half of this line was relatively clean. There was a leak indicated at lateral of house ##72 (Bloom) ; An easy steady flow, which showed infiltration somewhere in this lateral. The lateral to #87 appeared to be a homemade joint. Easement (442 ' ) - Lots 9-10 Rosemary to Lot 91 Berle Road: This run proved to be the cleanest and straighest of all viewing to date. Berle Road (Lot 91 to Lot 38 (352 ' ) : This line was quite clean. Showed leak in lateral to ##68. This must be infiltration through end cap. ##68 has septic system. Conclusions Results showed nothing wrong with main lines and certainly eliminates any possible contamination of wells from sanitary sewers. - Frank Messenger-, -Inspector--- -- FM:prb A.ttmts. MEMORANDUM July 22, 1977 To: Allan S. Young Re: Rosemary Lane Spend considerable time with Mr. & Mrs. Bloom, ¢#72 Rosemary Lane. They are very dissatisfied with the handling of the problems in their area, and were almost demanding some kind of action now! They. feel that after three weeks, some action should be forthcoming. Mr. Bloom also mentioned the developer' s bond--is it still in effect? (Buck told me "No. ") ; Cote' s installation of the lateral; and settlement of floor and cracks in foundation. He was skeptical of C.O. given when some grading remained in his backyard. They feel that the Town should be working toward the installa- tion of city water; however, the main topic was action now. Frank Messenger, Inspector FM:prb MEMORANDUM July 12, 1977 To: Allan S. Young Director of Public Works Re: Report on TV Scanner of Sewer Line - Rosemary Lane Manhole ##1 to Manhole ##2 - Rosemary This was not done due to breakdown of cable connecting to camera. Manhole ##2 to Manhole ##3 - Rosemary La. , south, thru Easement Wires (cross-section of spigot end of pipe visible at first bell to south from manhole. Sag in pipeline from 58' to 70 '± from manhole. Entire line should be flushed and vacuumed. Camera could not complete run due to debris, etc. in front of camera eye. Manhole ##3 to Manhole ##4 - Easement to Ash Road First joint to south did not look good. 20 ' from Manhole - Joint looked bad. 132 '± from manhole - there is a house connection to the right?? Sag (dip) in the line 145 '± to 178'± from manhole. Water build-up at camera denotes dip. Line should be flushed and vacuumed. Manhole ##4 to Manhole ##5 - Ash to 250 '± south of Ash. Everything looked O.K. except line should be cleaned. Frank Messenger Inspector FM:prb a; r y, ,--'.OFF - 95 40 VIM 3#i r'$}� .£i }i�,�(4 `` fv . �, stR• '"C`g �i ; 47 * ,yg�4F�rJ� "' , yn I To TP E #. POP a'a .. Y � �'. {�': F -�csc eY-s3 t'f s� " e'-• # �'rr gyp-' �' �'�'4..+- �' �e MMM 11 gam. Gq»- TT ,� '� Fc-f"�X 4 y1}e r.Y� F n.I" 'tt.A''�• "Ff` �" +� ?`' `3(y 4 - i•• �.`��-�, `�: � G��'' F '� 9,'tt`�'} '.�`-� a;�!'n �Y g�al�.,� 4�.�`•t�a��r," � •s`$ _ �i' jd�R ,¢� .".X�Z. � .fi 4,4x' � Gvr F �., yt M y�, + '`"^ T1'"' -•A-.`�` ,y, ±S°-'3S -'ate c n -nc+f tr7,,4 ok a fl9 b �: �u� .$�k{YS'y*._..r�w-�"'•u-ski is *ate L�'.� Y �.§'`a�,tY._�`3�., a'adccaa�ve��n�wta�+'a°s..�- 3�`- $' '�+�'r, `y� i`i+ �� '��"�-,£ Af� 41- wT, -' rig ` �. � y7•f #" 4 �+9. �a G Q.$ ''f '�1 t� `� r, 7 a � Y �- ram` REM, .' { u: ' v ' �F� fiFF � �4 t- r i;� r ,�wr r ` ' {' Ir31 .XE ,`. A� "x}1e' H1 �5 �'r �1 a 'TA ' ` '.' .T, � _ s �°� a ,�' � � �` ,�• u! 9. �` _ Yppi � t? ��{j}�("�e1�1� 4-. .+. - �+ � .- E� -♦ 'GLL _ T5' -� � &, ������. .rtb4�s Q�f�o � ;'�$s1�.�tpE� � �� ��r. ,��i�� ,� g 3•.,. -go y. . .'` ,;.._ ,#� °�i _ �'�F *F s �i v� � �.. a.-eY of fi f�t r - r�-� � � -�-,� s4 �'S���'� y .-rr. �,.: ai-7�.�.°,✓ .c,^ta 4,.' §`$e �.. �d�g�k = �` �-:'� '4,c "�a;� � a Fx:,_ ,_,. 4t_-_ �,��,5"., � !. � ._ '�� ate_" :✓ =, ,r�,.�-Y'�+f ,;+;��".'�'s .. '�cn' i�§r-`,�`Y�x.,"�_.��b�� �.,, _ .. _ 3� t r t 77, r k ;,,� '_ f y._"$.3'9k:+ • a _- H Ti bi IJ - -_ ,��•d; yam_; � ...� :... � ,.�_ _ s';� �... �_�.' _ �s,- t _ I - 1: Fr "€"Aw �rli pmiAir Zn .�'• -i. ° '_� x"rf s' -+s� y a�.�i{ r'?3,'S ;.. ida _054, t 9 1 -At ol � ; s *'a-•a * r## -r f '`s�, _ C "g"a 74" - F .-1 ��.���7' -+'-`� :�`s c �.t,''"s. ..r '* -x x t� €.,� �``Y -tar- n-�s .. ��• �� °,.° -}azr r ' _ t y1 4 nA 3'��. 6 � �h5 { aE ", 3 ku # _ 65 sot� F � �` �t ! .1 b �' r ` 4lSY � ��s ri, aP P �d�tlY hf �f s...._.�r R'L` gv t S s '� • -s _� � �-- .sr.Q� yids k . � w- it F _07 a � g + 'fir i my f F�y3'*r "L 1p r vyg 7-x3' £ S .„ j: '' '" � �,_ � � .d��,�� tr may{._ a �� t � � y F �F ��4N•-_ `fy -v� q a ti` � w t � '� i � t Om �rF r \ , ZA � f: '.� F JON � sy�� .� 7 �vs ".q � �2-,3€"�'•� :F'4`LL rx � � � k" r � �'" � t OF - •��-a�i _ � ..-.x�`��'"�• aq { Aorj ^fN.t IFT fu �F t «' ra Svr�SKx �; .. ., '�` �s` .�-��• � -_Pry ,a�:,:t�r s c ;. =a- trT�T' X>_` T«�k ` 4. } - tl ' ,.,•��„; �' fit'• '3:ixr^r �` .. •,�- .. i t 4 �p�g :. .- 3+"'°�, - y- - �, � ,���'�a: shbe `��i� _V� -..� � a�4,� ,�.. � .{'� ..y �': $i'fr'�`�'�. '� �tr y - �•'t y ' �, a ", t OF Pa a ..." - a, z!t1 • ?! '�e �t t.•,. "5' - a ,yam •.�r 4 i • �'` "• a �..- g ,�, -r +c�t• at,�, .sue, 'w,+ -a,' 53 we lF, ; L4 .,asKT t T h . w ° &'� -! � k-` "i&� -.t � .. �5�3'.:ii�a •' .` ; 4p. �T +r,�f a" All __AK , -"'; - V, 7� �'9 to I WWR l . :410 `�� WK '.L�� -_sue .: -�° r- � "'r_a• ,'�n =v .�z Al a . �t Y# y"•, ' _Y; .,fix v�'� _ +.4'F`. -s' s# _:.p' { a i + • as -,'�& q „n .YX si, `�d z e 'sue ,r 3t :,•'y,,�. '' ', q" q.a ti `i .)f ! •• $ x a s 3 Y _ $ '4 a-sy T" + iad! �_. 06 r {.c- 5 � -a, ,3 s.,: i' * ak.c ^'S� '<°`§g'•S.} £ ,- t� r 4-t`j '� ! < P� sty ' ,'. Jr''`z�,_, � � .=r i^• .. -' a' t zsr � o 1' .. •y # 'S Y.A yr�ie .. i� +. r l k § t �' &+l g•a ,� Ci` �R "3 § .�T#^' � ri' '� .z� ;'�. ��R` < 3:. .- d¢ �. ��K�.Y � t:ff'�• �"`-'wit 'a?? '�' 'sf -s_'fts 'e J �.' : x° �' -� �T` ifs`;a37 �" .sa+tf- t �s• �>„yR xS"(' xS:: F - s ��-�� _,� , .c�;a�'^ � ,�, ;. x,�� ;e r'=�3 , �;_ -�,�^�� �•� - +x�-� �'�`-y-, `�� �r:�����;.��=�'.�� <� ' die ' ,<. '"�`� €:�y�Td�i '��`-+:"',fs� v.}-r�,�ic*�"�z ''�i'• h-�-�� a" � `'�_. y j� 'R.+s� ��F''3<?'Y�C -may��� x� t�a'�" s€,+ ��;cst �"*" �`i% vie` • s rI� . r MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Talbot, Town Manager DATE: July 11, 1977 FROM: Allan Young, Director of Public Works The attached reports were filed by Public Works re the sewage back-up on Rosemary Lane. At this time our sanitary inspector is preparing a map of the area showing the proximity of all septic systems and wells, and taking ground water level tests. The State Department of Health is coordinating their activities with ours and it is expected that a report will be made available in approximately one weeks time. The Health Department has instructed the four (4) homeowners to chlorinate their wells and another test will be taken later this week to determine if the problem is recurring, or a one-time situation. Tuesday morning we are running a television camera thru the area sewer lines , _ MEMORANDUM July 6, 1977 TO: Allan S. Young, Director of Public Works From: F. C. Messenger Re: #80 Rosemary Lane - July 5, 1977 At approximately 3 : 20 P.M. this inspector went to #80 Rosemary Lane, in response to a complaint regarding sewage back-up in basement. I went to cellar with owner (Mr. Cooper) and sewage had indeed backed up through shower pipe and had flowed over carpets into three rooms. I actually walked in water to get to shower stall. I then went with 2 man crew and found situation as follows: MH @ Sta.8 + 24.3 on Rosemary - liquid 3 ' below cover MH C No. end Doria Lane (0+0) - liquid almost to cover MH on Doria Lane @ Ash - liquid 10 ' +or - below cover MH 200 ' + or - South of Ash - plugged with solids - no movement Crew began jetting @ MH @ Lake St. & Doria Lane and worked up to Rosemary Lane. I went to #80 and explained the situation to Mr. Cooper and called Town Hall. Mel Stead told me there was more help coming and Mr. Jeski was due to arrive to appraise conditions. Mr. Stead arrived @ 5:05 P.M. and told Mr. Cooper to have everything cleaned to his satisfaction and have cleaners prepaae itemized bill and Mr. Cooper was then to submit it to Town Hall. Water receded in shower stall as soon as blockage in man holes was relieved. Reference:-- Sheet 2 of 6 and 6 of 6 - Oak Grove Acres F. C. Messenger 7/6/77 _ __ FCM:acb •J t 07 July 1977 TO: Allan Young, Director of Public Works FROM: Tim Friend, Acting Superintendent of Pollution Control This afternoon (1 :00 pm - 2:00 pm) samples from the following properties on Rosemary Lane: Bloom #80 @ Kit � k Cooper #82 @ KI ��' nk Goldstein #73 @ k � sink Fiannamore #75 �� water softener Sample bottles were prov= the State Health Department this morning. (Received by r w) . When I finished sampl Hud Birden (566-3110) from the State Health Department ar I consulted with him about proper completion of the sG orms, and we also decided to take samples from the Cooper home a_ the Bloom home for additional chemical testing - in addition to bacteria testing. Bottles were provided by Mr. Birden. I then turned all of the samples over to Mr. Birden for delivery to his lab department. The test results will be sent to the Town Manager, and from there it is our responsibility to provide the homeowner with a copy of the appropriate report. SEALING AND/OR AIR TESTING REPORT DATE �—"� 5 77 COMMERCIAL PIPE SERVICE CONTRACT ITEM NO. FOR P.O. BOX 93 JOB SUPT. NH SECTION WETHERSFIELD, CONN. 06109 INSPECTOR /! 2- i Joint# Air Test Seal Retest Joint# Air Test Seal Retest Joint# Air Test Seal Retest Joint# Air Test Seal Retest 1 CK 26 51 76 2 6K 27 K 52 77 3 LAT n K 28 53 78 4 G►i 29 54 79 5 30 55 80 6 6 K 31 56 81 7 0 K 32 Liar O'rC 57 82 8 OK 33 n 58 83 9 K 34 OK 59 84 10 35 60 85 11 (^j 36 61 86 12 n K 37 62 87 13 nK 38 63 88 14 39 64 89 15 L I C, 40 65 90 16 Y 41 66 91 17 d 42 67 92 18 L 9T 43 68 93 19 44 69 94 20 ILA 1 45 70 95 21 46 71 96 22 47 72 97 23 K 48 73 98 24 49 74 25 50 7510099 TOTALS CHEMICAL USED: AM9# DMAPN gt. x 1.75#/gt. AP pt. x 2.5 #/gt. t t� SEALING AND/OR AIR TESTING REPORT DATE COMMERCIAL PIPE SERVICE CONTRACT ITEM NO. FOR 7CB._ JOB SUPT. P.O. BOX 93 NH SECTION WETHERSFIELD, CONN. 06109 INSPECTOR Joint# Air Test Seal Retest Joint# Air Test Seal Retest Joint# Air Test Seal Retest Joint# Air Test Seal Retest 1 26 51 76 2 OK 27 OK 52 77 3 OK 28 Y, 53 78 4 29 OK 54 79 5 O 30 55 80 6 O K 31 56 81 7 0 K 32 0 K 57 82 8 33 58 83 9 ©K 34 0 K 59 84 10 Q 35 0 K 60 85 11 OK 36 61 86 12 O 37 62 87 13 Q V' 38 63 88 14 39 64 89 15 K 40 65 90 16 OK 41 66 91 17 42 67 92 18 43 68 93 19 OK 44 69 94 20 p K 45 70 95 21 46 71 96 22 OK 47 72 97 23 01,11 48 73 98 24 49 74 99 25 K 50 75 100 TOTALS CHEMICAL USED: AM9# OWN gt. x 1.75#/gt. AP gt. x 2.5 #/9t. h SEALING AND/OR AIR TESTING REPORT DATE COMMERCIAL 77 COMMERCIAL PIPE SERVICE CONTRACT ITEM NO. FOR P.O. BOX 93 JOB SUPT. NH SECTION WETHERSFIELD, CONN. 06109 INSPECTOR Joint# Air Test Seal Retest Joint# Air Test Seal Retest Joint# Air Test Seal Retest Joint# Air:Test Seal Retest 1 OK 26 51 76 2 nK 27 52 77 3 LET A S 72 28 53 78 4 10K 29 54 79 5 30 55 80 6 OK 31 56 81 7 lq 1 K 32 57 82 8 14 33 58 83 9 Q K 34 59 84 10 OK 35 60 85 11 36 61 86 12 37 62 87 13 I/ 38 63 88 14 YC 39 64 89 15 L P' OK 40 65 90 16 a 41 66 91 17 CK 42 67 92 18 O K 43 68 93 19 44 69 94 20 L .'�" 45 70 95 21 46 71 96 22 47 72 97 23 48 73 98 24 49 74 99 25 50 75 100 TOTALS CHEMICAL USED: AM9# DMAPN gt. x 1.75#/gt. AP°gt. x 2.5 #/gt. a, CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Phone 566-2536 LABORATORY DIVISION to Clinton Street P.O. BOX 1689, Hartford, Conn. 06101 REPORT OF LABORATORY EXAMINATION Reported JUL 2 2 1977 Specimen No. 1 0$77_10880 Collector's No. Town of South Windsor Report of Examination of Water Specimens (From Membrane Filter For Enteric Pathogens Source See Below Collected by.,, Paul Talbot, Town Manager, 1540 Sullivan Ave., 'South Windsor Collected on. July 7, 1977 hr. M. Ree'd. July 11, 1977 hr. M. Report to: Malcom Shute, EHS, 79 Elm Street, Hartfordp Ct The examination gives the following results: t Enteric # Sanitary # Source 10877 >. 22739 Bloom, 72 Rosemary Lane, South Windsor 1OB78 22740 Cooper, 80 Rosemary Lane,' South Windsor 10879 22741 Goldstein, 73 Rosemary Lane, South Windsor 10880 22742 Giannamore, 87 Rosemary Lane, South Windsor RESULTS No Enteric Pathogens were observed from the above specimens. The results of examinations under the Sanitary # will be reported separately. R _ _ - _ of SouthWin�soc_ William W. Ullmann, Ph.D. Form OL-2oc ` Dgrectnr di, k37 =�5%: L�Tfl� f��@��f• Qf��$�4� 4.,nbortt'��I%���3�� .�s..J�,..=S�QX q�� .�kil�E��c�°z l��b�.t " �: �'d+,�' _ � �'r<--. '�$, TTMAP ■ _ .mac- 5 n V r 8 AFVp@I'5Qn rciA, ¢�V@ Q�b04 .. r �,tw 's�,9�`� '+�, � �F,,,•' z '; `_. ',.pv-.+ 'k n3 MWOP KLK� � �- ,�' `�m�� r 1`r + tea^' ''° �' � `{h 1 '�i'ff.E { '� � -`s'3 �, �' `4'N 1%• 'v.,«'v3Ya-s.sS: {r-'� x. ` n'FiR ">'sa -a.,_a �P F{ .r a' ••°e s "x ke PIT y , c,+K ;P4 ` _710 _ K f "•t - 91 / J .,N o" i.< .� � f��� �� �t•`L+E.�' � � �'i .��+" "'�. � .,, :•�f rt t K � si�� S,_ x �, '� � e e.k "iR�xy -r ,� �.�. .+�.• ,Yr e �> �'.rr t .�"' she a�L3 x 4n ti .f1 I'+ ! f Ya Y -M1 f F•` rOi'-- Ak ` -,7d OF _e fnsulE•sf#k . n� s" a �hi• o ply a ase Q✓SIiwY y4ytsa�a111C¢tb4l�tt Ca�lt4 is$� Wj11G�C �� RIO {a V Y,:L ryb�.•[j e t aF-l XF 1 4",l"f� �J j`i k .v.: t. E ;t�+l[-Y"3 z�. �k.` . �y told N Se.4( 1 �_� �Sou ,,A ?A;fzl� o � -i y". 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 c` AREA CODE 203/644-2511 c SOR GOa August 1, 1977 Atty. David Wichman 753 Main Street Manchester, Connecticut Dear Attorney Wichman: This letter will serve as confirmation that the Town of South Windsor will pay for contractor expenses to repair the house lateral at Mr. Bloom's residence at Rosemary Lane, if the repairs necessary are found to be located within the street right-of-way. If repairs are required to the lateral on Mr. Bloom' s .private property,' then the Town of South Windsor assumes no financial responsibility for any contractor expenses. Should no repairs be deemed necessary, then the Town would agree to pay 50% of contractor expenses with 500/. to be assumed by the homeowner (Mr. Bloom) . If these provisions meet with your client's approval, please have him sign and return a copy of this letter to my office. Due to the urgency of this matter, your prompt attention is appreciated. Very truly yours, TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR A lan S./,Y6nng Director of P .lsli" c Works ASY:prb PROVISIONS AGREED TO BY: Leon Bloom 72 Rosemary Lane, South Windsor, Ct. ��,✓✓" MEMORANDUM February 10, 1976 To: Donald McLaughlin Certified Building Official Re: Lot #10 - Oak Grove Acres Lot #10 in the above-mentioned subdivision has two (2) wells. Well #1 is located in a Sanitary Sewer easement. This well is presently connected to the house; however, it has to be abandoned for domestic use. I have discussed this with Mel Edwards, the buyer' s attorney, and Mel Stead. Before a C.O. is issued, the house should be connected to Well #2, which is to the North and rear of the house. Also, as you are probably aware, there is a landscaping problem (water) . which Cote is in the process of alleviating. Lester A. Braddock LAB:prb CC: Melvin Edwards, Jr. J. E. Page