Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptic Correspondence 00 Niederwerfer Ro (2) ate Soa.,A Vz�� wto 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 AREA CODE 203/644-2511 October 15, 1992 Attorney Gerald S. Sack Sack, Spector and Barrett 836 Farmington Avenue West Hartford, Connecticut 06119 Dear Attorney Sack: This correspondence wi77 serve to reiterate our conversation of October 14, 1992 regarding the Miller property on Niederwerfer Road in South Windsor. To the best of my knowledge, at this point in time the Town has not told the property owner that the property cannot be used. Results of the soil testing conducted in 1988 by this Department, although not encouraging, have not definitely excluded the installation of septic systems on the property. It is recommended at this time that the property owner make arrangements to complete the necessary soil testing and percolation testing in the presence of the Town En v i ronmen to 7 Hea 7 th Officer, a representative of the State Hea 7 th Department and possibly a so i 7 scientist. After the conc lus ion of those activities, a determination can be made as to the suitability of the property in its present state and whether or not the discharge has any effect on the na tura 7 ly occurring ground water table. Very tru ly yours, Robert Depto7 RS Environmental Health Officer RD:jh cc: Town Manager Jean E. Zurbrigen Frank B. Hall Risk Management, Inc. A ttn: Bill O' Connor April 30, 1992 N EN"DUM TO: Michael Gantick, Director of Public Works RE: Miller vs. Town of South Windsor As per your request, following are responses to #1, Environmental only and #3 of correspondence to you from Gerald S. Sack regarding Miller vs. Town of South Windsor dated April 13, 1992. #1 As is apparent from observation pits dug toward the rear of the property March of 1988, the soil at those pit locations was of poor quality for septic system installation. (Reference enclosed data sheet and letter to property owner). Ground water was observed at similar depths below existing grade in three different test pits, each separated by more than 100 feet. These factors combine to indicate that the property probably is not suitable, or marginal at best, for septic system installation. As for the discharge, any potential effect would be limited to the southern most portion of the property over which the discharge flows. The discharge is surface water and temporary discharge of road run off only would not effect septic system installation. However, it is currently known that high ground water exists on the property itself which may preclude septic system installation. #3 As indicated on the investigation for sewage disposal form dated March 8, 1988, no percolation test was conducted at that time. It still must be done. Observation pits were dug which showed poor soil and high ground water that may make the area unsuitable based on pertinent health code requirements. As indicated on the enclosed data sheet, additional soil testing in addition to the percolation test is required to determine suitability. I have reviewed this memo with Attorney Rittenband who suggests that this information be conveyed to Attorney Sack under Attorney-Client Privilege Communication and that Attorney Rittenband would be happy to discuss this matter with Attorney Sack. Robert Deptula, RS Environmental Health Officer RD:jh Conneelicut Environmend eAssodates 58 FLEETWOOD ROAD • NEWINGTON, CONNECTICUT 06111 • (203) 666-1614 June 17, 1992 Atty. Joan B. Keating-McKeon Heffernan & Heffernan 29 South Main St. P.O. Box 270085 West Hartford, Ct. 06127-0085 Re: Miller, Kenneth v South Windsor PRELIMINARY REPORT Dear Atty Keating-McKeon: Thank you for covering for Joe during his convalescence. As he requested, I have taken a first look at this property and its soils problem. The property is vacant land located on the east side of Neiderwerfer Rd. near the East Windsor town line. It is best located as being just north of a telephone pole marked # 2211 . The land shows a gentle visual slope from the street down towards the rear (easterly) . The surface vegetation and soils were greatly disturbed by clearing activities that occurred in the recent past. The soil surface showed a silt soil with some sand and clays mixed v in, not to different from that reported in the 1988 septic investigation report. More importantly, on that day, more than a week after heavy rains, most of the soils showed clear signs of dampness. Other undisturbed lands adjacent also showed ferns and other wetland vegetation. Therefor, it is clear that in it's present condition, the lot suffers from excess water. ( f / A cardinal point in considering the source of such water is the 40 - - .( catch basin located just to the north of the telephone pole mentioned above. That basin drains thru a stub pipe (10 -15 ft) into the Miller' s lot. At the time I investigated, there was a impoundment of water approximately 2-3 ft. wide, 12-15 ft. long and 1 ft. or more deep at the discharge point of this pipe. There was no stream discharge beyond that point. This water appears to dissipate into the lot flooding the land at random and of course soaking the soils. Am I correct in understanding that the dispute centers upon Mr. Miller' s desire to use the lot as a homesite? And that the saturated soils found in 1988 prevent the installation of a septic system? If that is correct, then I would suggest the following: SACK, SPECTOR AND BARRETT ATTORNEYS AT LAW 836 FARMINGTON AVENUE (203)233-8251 WEST HARTFORD.CONNECTICUT 06119 FAX(203)232-8736 October 6, 1992 PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL/ ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION Michael Gantick, P.E. Director of Public Works Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Miller v. Town of South Windsor Dear Mike: Enclosed is a report b plaintiff's new "ex ert" Philip Y p p p Block. Please phone me with your comments. Very tru y yours, Geral Sack GSS/kap enclosure F AW 1 . Excavate a drainage ditch from the discharge point of the catch basin down the steepest slope to the rear of the lot. 2. After allowing for the lot to dry, repeat and complete the site investigation started in 1988. This should be done during the driest part of the summer. But note that the n Health Department may rightfully require waiting for high ground water next spring before final determination. 3. If as I might hope, the ditch shows .that the lot can dry out to a point where a septic system may be installed, then this matter might be settled by the Town agreeing to install piping discharging the catch basin to the rear of the lot. Mr.. Miller would probably be asked to provide a proper easement for this pipe. 5. However, such a pipe and easement would further assist Mr. wb fi Miller since I would expect that a curtain drain across the front of the lot draining into that pipe an easement would further improve the lot and the proposed septic system.. Please contact me to discuss this matter further. I remain available to supervise the experimental development of the property at your direction. Sincerely Yours Philip M. Block PMB/cb SACK, SPECTOR AND BARRETT ATTORNEYS AT LAW 836 FARMINGTON AVENUE (203)S33•SS61 WEST HARTFORD,CONNECTICUT 06119 FAX(203)232-8736 October 7, 1992 PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION Robert Deptula, R.S. Environmental Health Officer Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Kenneth E. Miller v. Town of South Windsor Dear Mr. Deptula: Enclosed is a report by plaintiff' s new "expert" , Philip Block. Please phone me with your comments.. Please also find enclosed a disclosure of you as an expert witness for the town. Please call if this does not accurately reflect what you are able to testify to. Very truly yours, era d S ck GSS/kap enclosure L NO. CV 92 0050042S KENNETH E. MILLER SUPERIOR COURT VS. J.D. OF TOLLAND/ROCKVILLE AT ROCKVILLE TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR OCTOBER 7, 1992 PRELIMINARY DISCLOSURE OF EXPERT Mr. Robert Deptula, Sanitarian of the Town of South Windsor, will testify as an expert witness for the defendant. Mr. Deptula will testify that, in his opinion, the storm water discharge on the property has no effect on whether or not the property can support a subsurface waste disposal system. He will further testify that in his opinion, based on the soil testing to date, the site is not suitable to support a subsurface waste disposal system. Mr. Deptula will also explain the soil testing to date, the standards and regulations that apply to soil testing, the requirements for approval of a subsurface waste disposal system, and relevant Town records concerning the site. Mr. Deptula's opinions and conclusions are based on his experience as Town Sanitarian, his training, his review of Town records, and his observations of the site. Defendant, By G rald S. S ck Sack, Spec r & Barrett 836 Farmin ton Avenue West Hartf rd, CT 06119 SACK,SPECTOR AND BARRETT • ATTORNEYS AT LAW 836 FARMINGTON AVE. • WEST HARTFORD,CT 06119 • (203)233-8251 • JURIS NO.52776 This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed to Heffernan & Heffernan, 29 South Main Street, West Hartford, CT 06127 and John M. Casey, Esq. , 475 Buckland Road, South Windsor, CT 06074 on this 7th day of October, 1992 . I l Ge ald S. Sack 1 1 SACK,SPECTOR AND BARRETT • ATTORNEYS AT LAW 836 FARMINGTON AVE. • WEST HARTFORD,CT 06119 • (203)233.8251 • JURIS NO.52776 C/44jmpo Connedicut Environmena Q14ssocidtes 58 FLEETWOOD ROAD • NEWINGTON, CONNECTICUT 06111 • (203) 666-1614 June 17, 1992 Atty. Joan B. Keating-McKeon Heffernan & Heffernan 29 South Main St. P.O. Box 270085 West Hartford, Ct. 06127-0085 Re: Miller, Kenneth v South Windsor PRELIMINARY REPORT Dear Atty Keating-McKeon: Thank you for covering for Joe during his convalescence. As he requested, I have taken a first look at this property and its soils problem. The property is vacant land located on the east side of Neiderwerfer Rd. near the East Windsor town line. It is best located as being just north of a telephone pole marked # 2211 . The land shows a gentle visual slope from the street down towards the rear (easterly) . The surface vegetation and soils were greatly disturbed by clearing activities that occurred in the recent past. The soil surface showed a silt soil with some sand and clays mixed in, not to different from that reported in the 1988 septic investigation report. More importantly, on that day, more than a week after heavy rains, most of the soils showed clear signs of dampness. Other undisturbed lands adjacent also showed ferns and other wetland vegetation. Therefor, it is clear that in it' s present condition, the lot suffers from excess water. A cardinal point in considering the source of such water is the catch basin located just to the north of the telephone pole mentioned above. That basin drains thru a stub pipe (10 -15 ft) into the Miller' s lot. At the time I investigated, there was a impoundment of water approximately 2-3 ft. wide, 12-15 ft. long and 1 ft. or more deep at the discharge point of this pipe. There was no stream discharge beyond that point. This water appears to dissipate into the lot flooding the land at random and of course soaking the soils. Am I correct in understanding that the dispute centers upon Mr. Miller' s desire to use the lot as a homesite? And that the saturated soils found in 1988 prevent the installation of a septic system? If that is correct, then I would suggest the following: 1 . Excavate a drainage ditch from the discharge point of the catch basin down the steepest slope to the rear of the lot. 2. After allowing for the lot to dry, repeat and complete the site investigation started in 1988. This should be done during the driest part of the summer. But note that the Health Department may rightfully require waiting for high ground water next spring before final determination. 3. If as I might hope, the ditch shows that the lot can dry out to a point where a septic system may be installed, then this matter might be settled by the Town agreeing to install piping discharging the catch basin to the rear of the lot. Mr. Miller would probably be asked to provide a proper easement for this pipe. 5. However, such a pipe and easement would further assist Mr. Miller since I would expect that a curtain drain across the front of the lot draining into that pipe and easement would further improve the lot and the proposed septic system. Please contact me to discuss this matter further. I remain available to supervise the experimental development of the property at your direction. Sincerely Yours Philip M. Block PMB/cb SACK, SPECTOR AND BARRETT ATTORNEYS AT LAW 836 FARMINGTON AVENUE (203)233-8251 WEST HARTFORD,CONNECTICUT 06119 FAX(203)232-8736 June 12, 1992 Robert Deptula, R.S. Environmental Health Officer Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Kenneth E. Miller v. Town of South Windsor Dear Mr. Deptula: This office is presently representing the Town of South Windsor in the above captioned matter. Enclosed is a copy of a letter you wrote to Mr. Miller in April of 1988 regarding soil testing that was conducted on the property. This testing had been requested by Mr. William Mitchell. Would you kindly forward at your earliest convenience copies of all testing reports and other information you have with respect to this property. In addition, any information you might provide with respect to Mr. Mitchell 's relationship to this property would be appreciated. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, � 1 Nicole D. Dorman NDD/kap �t0*1N sE,`� 9 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 soe•co��w AREA CODE 203/644-2511 April 21, 1988 Mr. Edmund E. Miller 65 Barber Hill Road Broad Brook, CT. 06016 Dear Mr. Miller: . Enclosed, for your information, are the results of the soil testing conducted on your property on Niederwerfer Road by this department. This soil testing was requested by William Mitchell. The results at this time, although not definitely conclusive, are not encouraging. Please refer to the enclosed data sheet. Very truly yours, acl-� 1 � Robert Deptula, R.S. Environmental Health Officer Enclosure RD/ml ��O•�N sF�`� C � Town Sou'& 7& 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 SOB 0) AREA CODE 203/644-2511 April 15, 1988 Mr. Edmund E. Miller 65 Barber Hill Road Rockville, CT. Dear Mr. Miller: Enclosed, for your information, are the results of the soil testing conducted on your property on Niederwerfer Road by this department. This soil testing was requested by William Mitchell. The results at this time, although not definitely conclusive, are not encouraging. Please refer to the enclosed data sheet. Very truly yours, Robert Deptula, R.S. Environmental Health Officer Enclosure RD/ml tOW N 8f7 .. 70-wtli O-P SOUZA ?d' P w� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CONN. 06074 l��SOR-coda AREA CODE 203/644-2511 April 21, 1988 Mr. Edmund E. Miller 65 Barber Hill Road Broad Brook, CT. 06016 Dear Mr. Miller: Enclosed, for your information, are the results of the soil testing conducted on your property on Niederwerfer Road by this department. This soil testing was requested by William Mitchell. The results at this time, although not definitely conclusive, are not encouraging. Please refer to the enclosed data sheet. Very truly yours, k4-� Robert Deptu a, R.S. Environmental Health Officer Enclosure RD/ml Tao6, Y4 SACK, SPECTOR AND BARRETT p&,t-ae, ATTORNEYS AT LAW / G_ 836 FARMINGTON AVENUE (203)233-S251 WEST HARTFORD.CONNECTICUT 06119 FAX(203)232-S730 April 13, 1992 PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL/ ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE COMMUNICATION Michael Gantick, P.E. Director of Public Works Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Miller v. Town of South Windsor Dear Mike: Thank you for your time and courtesies in connection with our meeting and site visit of April 9. As discussed, you have kindly agreed to coordinate with the other town departments and gather information on the following issues: 1© What is the opinion. of the Zoning & Environmental offices on the question of whether the discharge has any present effect of the potential development of the parcel for its highest and best use (presumably as residential building lots. ) ? 2. What was the basis of the assessor's apparent 60% reduction in the assessment of the parcel since 1975? What was the reason for the percolation test failure: soil types, the discharge waters, or both? I look forward to your input on this matter. Thanks again. Very truly yours, Geral S. Sack GSS/kap cc: Richard Rittenband, Esq. Mr. William O'Connor A Out /Vd— 9 g� �sf� rLtJri9D �1,� r xP' do � ' e KoW 4�� "6tla a < � t � � 5 � 0 � � � i � � � � � g d d r � � � � q� � � `� � 1 �+ d � -� � � � � � � � 3 i � �r � � � � � � � � � � h � � � � `� � � �� ° f � �� � � � . � �� � � � t ;� � s � � �� � ' �� � � � I�� l4e- - i i I i ;i { I j' i� �', - U, ';; r-:--� ,G 1` r �`�_ �^ ��_��t �P - i; i Za � G _ sy� Gw� 1 � SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND AT ROCKVILLE CASE NO. CV 92-0050042 To: Robert Deptula Sanitarian, Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, You are hereby commanded to appear before the Superior Court, Judicial District of Tolland at Rockville, to be held at 69 Brooklyn Street, Rockville, Connecticut on the fourteen day of December, A.D. 1994, at 10:00 o'clock in the forenoon, then and there to testify what you know in a certain cause therein pending, wherein Kenneth Miller is Plaintiff, and the Town of South Windsor is Defendant or to such day thereafter and within 60 days hereof on which said action is legally to be tried, AND YOU ARE FURTHER COMMANDED to BRING WITH YOU AND PRODUCE at the same time and place: A) all papers and documents, maps and applications pertaining to property of Kenneth Miller, formerly Edmund Miller, located on Niederwerfer Road in South Windsor, and any projects and studies in connection therewith; and B) any and all records or documents in your possession pertinent to this matter. HEREOF FAIL NOT, UNDER` PENALTY OF THE LAW IN THAT CASE PROVIDED. Dated at Somers, Connecticut this eighth day of December, 1994. To any proper officer or indifferent person to serve and return. ruce D. Tyler Commissioner of the uperior Court Tyler & Williams 48 South Road, P.O. Box 782 Somers, CT 06071 Juris No. 100222 Tel. 763-1662 �, County, ss. Connecticut Then and by virtue hereof, I read the within Subpoena in the presence and hearing of the within named witness: Robert Deptula and paid, tendered each the fees allowed by law. January 10, 1995 Ms. Jean Zurbrigen Town Manager Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: Demand for Percolation Test Property of Kenneth Miller on Niederwerfer Road, South Windsor Dear Ms. Zurbrigen: Please be advised that Mr. Miller is the owner of a piece of property located on Niederwerfer Road in South Windsor. You are further advised that Mr. Miller has contracted to sell said piece of property and that, in connection with said contract, a percolation test was scheduled with Mr. Deptula, sanitarian for the town cf South Windsor. This morning we were informed that the aforementioned percolation test has been cancelled on the instructions of the town attorney, ostensibly due to the fact that there is litigation pending. You are hereby notified the location of the proposed percolation test is oil property owned by Mr. Miller, is not located on that portion of land taken from Mr. Miller by the town of South Windsor in a condemnation proceeding, and is not affected by any litigation. On behalf of Mr. Kenneth Miller, we hereby demand that the per- colation test proceed as scheduled., Very truly yours//, o^ V�w/ V , Sr,� .e Bruce D. Tyler BDT/lb cc: K. Millers Atty. Dorman Atty. Alexander �=�' �tpr,N a 41 Tlo�� O-P Sgu& ?d&U&0,t w� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR. CONN. 06074 �l�oSOR. 0 AREA CODE 203/644-2511 October 15, 1992 Attorney Gera Id S. Sack Sack, Spector and Barrett 836 Farmington Avenue West Hartford, Connecticut 06119 Dear Attorney Sack: This correspondence will serve to reiterate our conversation of October 14, 1992 regarding the Miller property on Niederwerfer Road in South Windsor. To the best of my knowledge, at this point in time the Town has not told the property owner that the property cannot be used. Results of the soil testing conducted in 1988 by this Department, although not encouraging, have not definitely excluded the installation of septic systems on the property. It is recommended at this time that the property owner make arrangements to complete the necessary soil testing and percolation testing in the presence of the Town En v ironmenta 1 Hea 1 th Officer, a representative of the State Hea 1 th Department and possibly a soil scientist. After the conclusion of those activities, a determination can be made as to the suitability of the property in its present state and whether or not the discharge has any effect on the naturally occurring ground water table. Very truly yours, Robert Deptu 1 , RS En v i ronmen to 1 Hea 1 th Officer RD:jh cc: Town Manager Jean E. Zurbrigen Frank B. Hall Risk Management, Inc. Attn: Bi 11 O' Connor April 30, 1992 MENORANDI I TO: Michael Gantick, ,Director of Public Works RE: Miller vs. Town. of `South Windsor As per your request, following are responses to #1, Environmental only and #3 of correspondence to you from Gerald S. Sack regarding Miller vs. Town of South Windsor dated April 13, 1992. #1 As is apparent from observation pits dug toward the rear of the property March of 1988, the soil at those pit locations was of poor quality for 'septic system installation. (Reference enclosed data sheet and letter to property owner). Ground water was observed at similar depths below existing grade in three different test pits, each separated by more than 100 feet. These factors combine to indicate that the property probably is not suitable, or marginal at best, for septic system installation. As for the discharge, any potential effect would be limited to the southernmost portion of the property over which the discharge flows. The discharge is surface water and temporary discharge of road run off only would not effect septic system installation. However, it is currently known that high ground water exists on the property itself which may preclude septic system installation. #3 As indicated on the investigation for sewage disposal form dated March 8, 1988, no percolation test was conducted at that time. It still must be done. Observation pits were dug which showed poor soil and high ground water that may make the area unsuitable based on pertinent health code requirements. As indicated on the enclosed data sheet, additional soil testing in addition to the percolation test is required to determine suitability. I have reviewed this memo with Attorney Rittenband who suggests that this information be conveyed to Attorney Sack under Attorney-Client Privilege Communication and that Attorney Rittenband would be happy to discuss this matter with Attorney Sack. yke Robert Deptula, RS Environmental Health Officer RD:jh