 Good evening. I'd like to call the lawyer and commission meeting August 20th at 7 o'clock. So thank you for everybody for being here tonight. I'm very proud as we get to the end of this. I want to introduce the latest member of the board, Princess. She is our student body representative. I guess you'd call her. Yeah. Yeah. Very good. Happy to have you. Very excited. All right. So today we have a balance pay initiative community septic site for you. That might be great to see. And I'm going to introduce our hydrologist, Craig Handel, of Wade Handel who's kind of enough to join us this evening. He looked at the town property to see what the ability of it would be to sustain on septic. Just I think by way of all the background sort of recap for people that have been attending these meetings or being missed one along the way is you start back in May with the task from the select board to identify solutions for wastewater pollution in the Bay. There were three main concepts that were identified coming out of that. One was laying conservation. The other was community septic. And the other was sewer. The other one that's going to be offered as sort of a control is a do nothing. So the three that are being evaluated, we've arrived at the last one, which is community septic. We had a little bit of a prelude to this on July 2nd. We were kind of to be joined by a couple of folks in the state that gave an overview as to what community septic is. So if we need sort of a pressure on what community septic is versus sewer versus regular onsite, go back, everything's online, ColchesterBT.gov or tinyurl.com backslash, ColchesterMBI. There are links to those videos and packet information. So in looking at where we could site a community septic that could serve this air mallet state area, we looked to what the town's holdings were, what we could look to test and look at and review. And a principal note was an undeveloped parcel of townowns called the Bayside Gayslip piece, which is located close to the intersection of Blakely Eastlake Shore. If you come out late or late, you go straight across the road, you wind up in the middle of the parcel, it wraps around the Eastlake Shore of Blakely. And so Mr. Handel is with us tonight to give a servant overview as to what the possibilities could be to locate community septic on that site. Hi, thanks. Glad to join you. The valuation and permitting of a large-scale wastewater disposal site involves at least two professionals, engineering and hydrogeology. And in some cases, aquatic ecology. That third one is probably not going to apply to this situation. So of those two, engineering and hydrogeology, I'm the hydrogeologist. It's a fancy word for groundwater, geologist. And I've been looking at indirect discharge sites all over the state for 40 years. And I did a very preliminary evaluation of this parcel. The report has been passed around. And let's just get started. I'm going to jump right to the conclusion, which is that... But there are some caveats to this conclusion. But the answer is the site has plenty of capacity for on the order of 100,000 gallons a day. Maybe 80,000 gallons, maybe 120,000 gallons. But it's got a lot of capacity for large-scale wastewater disposal in a permittable fashion. Quick conclusion. Let me show you how I got there. The scary part of the conclusion from a dollar point of view is that over 50,000 gallons a day, the indirect discharge rules require tertiary treatment. Let me just back up a little bit to the indirect discharge rules to explain those. Vermont and a number of other states and the EPA acknowledges that groundwater, at least in, say, the northern humid third of America, groundwater discharges into surface water. And there's been a long-standing requirement of surface water direct discharge permits like come out of a wastewater treatment plant and discharge their water by pipe into a river. That's called a direct discharge. Hydrologists and hydrogeologists have known for decades that wastewater disposal into groundwater is a similar kind of discharge, but it's indirect in that wastewater joins the groundwater. The groundwater discharges into rivers. So the leach fields in your backyard don't make the water go away. That wastewater joins groundwater, and the groundwater eventually discharges into a stream or lake. And so that's why they're called indirect discharges and that's why they're regulated as indirect discharges. So the Vermont regs for indirect discharge require tertiary treatment for more than 50,000 gallons a day. You've got more than enough physical capacity for 50,000 gallons a day, but it does require tertiary treatment. Tertiary treatment is basically adding nutrient removal to a pretty standard municipal wastewater treatment plant. Essentially all of the wastewater treatment plants in Vermont now, tertiary adds an additional component which is nutrient removal, primarily phosphorus and nitrogen, and it's expensive. So those first two conclusions in blue, you've got plenty of capacity, you're going to have to make tertiary treatment, but this is a preliminary evaluation I did know in the ground evaluation. That would be needed to do this. So I'm basing this preliminary evaluation on data that we have from surrounding properties and on experience at other similar sites. So this is just a best professional estimate at the moment. It would need to be confirmed. The site, as Sarah described, it's this parcel here. So north is at the top. There's Malletts Bay. There's the intersection of Blakely and Lakeshore. We're off the map down here. So surrounded by development, and some of that development has groundwater and soils information that I used to assess this site. So that's the location. We'll come back to this in a minute. The indirect discharge regs require three evaluations. And so I had to think about this property from all three of these individual capacities, whichever capacity is the lowest on a site is the controlling capacity. So the first capacity is there enough application area horizontal? Is there room on the site laterally to put in a leach field or some sort of disposal mechanism? The second capacity is their vertical room underneath the site for the what we call induced groundwater mound to develop underneath the wastewater disposal system whatever form that disposal system is. Is there room for that? And that's about my previous statement that the wastewater that comes out of a leach field doesn't disappear. It percolates downward through the soil and joins the water table, but it causes that water table to rise. And that rise of water table is called a groundwater mound. We call it an induced groundwater mound because it's induced by the loading of wastewater. The regs require appropriately that induced groundwater mound not rise all the way to the ground surface, that there be basically a freeboard. Here you folks probably, many of you are boaters, you understand the concept of freeboard. So that's the unsaturated zone below the bottom of the disposal system and there is required to be at least three feet of unsaturated soil. The purpose of that unsaturated soil is to provide some additional treatment and a safety factor so that the treated wastewater doesn't come to the ground surface. Vermont's pretty conservative in those regs. Some states require two feet of freeboard. Some require four. Some don't require any evaluation of the induced groundwater mound. They just hope that it doesn't develop Vermont's more progressive than that. So that's the second of the three independent capacities is the induced groundwater mound capacity. And then in the indirect discharge rules is the third capacity number three there and it's the proof of compliance with the aquatic permitting criteria which is the phrase they use for Vermont's surface water standards. And in particular, the critical aquatic permitting criteria for indirect discharges are two nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus. And so those are the third capacity that has to be developed. So when I evaluate a site for its potential capacity for to be an indirect discharge, I've got to evaluate independently all three of those capacities, whichever is the most limiting is what says the capacity of the site. So let's start with them. Number one, back to the sufficient application area. That's the horizontal area on the land. Is there enough room? The answer is yes. So there's a zoom in. Yep. Just how many acres? That's a good question. Sarah? It's approximately 13. 13 acres? So the parcel circle is outlined in red. It's about 500 feet, maybe 500, 600 feet wide at its widest point. And so there are two forms of on-site wastewater disposal that would be appropriate for this site, drip dispersal and a conventional leach field. My first slide is about drip dispersal. I'll show you some documents about that. But that would occupy about that much area for 100,000 gallons. If you told me 120,000 gallons, I can make the blue triangle, the blue rectangle is a little bit bigger. If you told me I only need 85,000 gallons, we would size it differently. So it's got plenty of room. The reason there are two blue areas, and you'll see that on the next slide, on the slide about a conventional leach field, is that the indirect discharge require the building of 200% capacity. And we alternate those disposal fields on a yearly basis. So that's an additional sort of safety factor. That requirement may be waived. I've gotten it waived on another site in southern Vermont, where we had a very similar high level of treatment. The treatment level was so high that the regulators agreed that a dual alternating system was not necessary. That dual alternating requirement was put in place pretty early when these regs were written. They're more than 20 years old when very few drip dispersal systems were under consideration. So we may not need 200% capacity, I guess is what I'm saying about that. But for conservative's sake, the regs as written require 200% capacity and they're shown right there. So there's plenty of room for a drip dispersal system. What is drip? It's irrigation pipes that are laid six to 12 inches below the ground surface. This is that little brown slice there is one down in Bromley, the ski area down in Peru where we did a pilot test of a drip dispersal system. So they are sliced in with a ditch which kind of machine, sort of a soil knife, 8 to 10 inches, 12 inches below ground surface. So they're very shallow, which is good because they take advantage of the renovative capacity of the shallow soil. They can go anywhere, they can snake around. You can see this is kind of a lumpy field. That's okay, they just snake around and follow the contours. It's sort of like, it's a fancy version of your home style drip system for irrigation of your gardens. They have this little hole every couple of feet. That hole has a little Plastic gizmo inside it that makes it emit the same amount of water regardless of the amount of water pressure that those pipes are under. So it's a very clever design. They're used, there are hundreds of them probably tens of thousands of them in the Northeast, hundreds of them in Vermont, several hundreds of them in Southern New England. It's a technology that's been around for 20 years. Very well understood, very well designed. So they slice them in, there they are going in the ground. There's a ditch which, cutting them in. And you can lay them in the woods. So this is important because that's what the woods look like on the hazelut parcel. There's a site being installed in Litchfield, Connecticut, in the woods. You snake them in between the trees. So the little trees might come down but there's a lot of big, gorgeous trees in the hazelut parcel. If you wanted to leave them, you could. And you just snake the pipes around them. And in fact, that's perhaps good because there is some uptake at least in the growing season of these nutrients by the trees. So the advantage of the drip dispersal is too, it's shallow and therefore it's got more phosphorus remediation. And number two, the trees can stay if you wanted to. So, or it could be a conventional Litchfield. That could be a little bit smaller. There's two of them there because again I said both, two of them have to be built and alternated back and forth. But the trees all come down and it would be a flat field or perhaps gently stepped. This parcel slopes very gently at like one or two or three percent. So the Litchfield trenches or narrow beds might be laid slightly stepping down so that there wouldn't be a big, huge, flat field. But the trees have to come down for sure. You've seen them. There are two very large Litchfields in Vermont that are used to receive treated, or tertiary treated wastewater. The closest one is up at Sugarbush that it's called the Lincoln Peak Disposal Field. They dispose of more than 100,000 gallons, I think 150,000 gallons of tertiary treated wastewater in this big field. You can see all the little pink rectangles are individual disposal fields. There's the treatment building for the tertiary treatment system. So if you want to go see one, Sugarbush is the place to go see it. There's another big one way down in Wilmington or West Dover that serves North Branch Fire District, which is the wastewater disposal entity that serves the Mount Snow Ski Area Valley. So there are two big ones in the state that you can go see. So we've got enough. Number one, capacity looks okay. Number two, do we have room for the induced groundwater mound? The answer is yes. I'm not going to bore you with the calculations that I did. The state regulation procedure, the state regulators have looked at my calcs and said yes, they agree with my calcs. So there is plenty of capacity for the induced groundwater mound to build up underneath this disposal field on the order of 100,000 gallons a day. So we've got room for the induced groundwater mound. The third question is the aquatic permitting criteria. And again there, it appears likely that we meet the nutrient standards. I say appears likely in big bold letters because this will need to be confirmed by a pilot test that would be conducted. But based on my experience at Bromley, where we did a very similar kind of operation, similar kind of site, 15, 20, 25 feet of wastewater, of sand and gravel, it looks like it would work out here. But it's got to be confirmed. And again I make this judgment based on a pilot test that we did at Bromley a couple of years ago, similar site, sands and gravels. And the difficulty, the toughest one is phosphorus. The regs are very strict on phosphorus, not only all over the state. So this is even before the phosphorus TMDL for Lake Champlain. This requirement's been around for 20 years. So we can't increase the phosphorus by more than one part per million, by .001 milligram per liter. That's a very small number. The great thing about sands and gravels in northern New England is that they have aluminum and iron coatings on the sand grains, and there's a chemical adsorption of phosphorus by those coatings on the sand grains. And the phosphorus sticks permanently to the sand grains. And that's why I think this site's going to work. That's why it worked at Bromley. We applied tertiary treated test effluent for four months in Bromley, and saw no increase in phosphorus in the groundwater after those four months. We did see a pretty big increase in nitrogen, as I expected. Nitrogen is not captured by the soil. It passes right on through. But the phosphorus was gobbled up by the soil. So we have a capacity approval for 80,000 gallons. Of tertiary treated effluent on a similar kind of sand and gravel plateau down at Bromley. The compliance point for where this, those two nutrient standards have to be met, is either in a stream, but there's no stream here because of the lake. So where there is no stream, it's 300 feet down gradient of the disposal field. So that's why I cited the disposal field in the middle of the site rather than way up north right near the edge close to Mallence Bay because I want room for that compliance activity to happen if you're going to pursue this. So to make this work, to confirm this, we would need a site-specific confirmation of this nutrient uptake, and of course it would need to be tertiary treated. I keep saying it because it has a big dollar, as you have perhaps heard. So tertiary treatment, we need to get the phosphorus down to about 0.5 milligrams per liter in the wastewater that is sent to the disposal system. Typical phosphorus in raw sewage or in septic tank effluent is around 10 milligrams per liter. So we've got to have a 20-fold reduction in phosphorus. And phosphorus is a hard nutrient to remove, and the combination of it being difficult, and we've got to make a big reduction is why it's an expensive treatment procedure. Nitrogen is not such a big deal. We've got to get it down to around 5, and that's quite doable. There you can see the requirements. If we're over 50,000 gallons a day, this line here, it's got to be tertiary treated. You see in the mention of spray field here, some of the many of the ski areas use spray disposal. It's very effective also. It's sprayed in the woods through irrigation type nozzles. It's not something that I would recommend in a heavily settled area like this. There needs to be at least a 200-foot separation from all property lines, and even then sometimes you can smell it. And you're not smelling sewage, you're smelling the chlorine. It's a highly disinfected effluent, so you can smell the chlorine a little bit, and in my mind it doesn't make sense in a heavily settled place like Mallets Bay. It's commonly done in the woods on sloping wooded sites in the mountains for the ski areas. So there's the treatment level. We've got to get down to these numbers for tertiary treatment. Can we avoid tertiary treatment because that's a big dollar? Well, you could. You could get below 50,000 gallons a day and do secondary treatment, still moderately expensive. And the risk of just going to secondary is that we might not meet that phosphorus removal. So we would, if you said not correct, we want to try it and go for 49,000 gallons a day, we would do a pilot test using secondary effluent, and that's going to be a pretty expensive test. And at the end of that test, we may conclude, nope, it didn't remove enough of the phosphorus. So there's that risk of not meeting the nutrient removal question. And then finally, there's a slope stability issue that I'm concerned about. This is a zoom in on that map that I showed you before. So there's East Lakeshore Drive. The black up here is Mallets Bay. So this is the parcel right here. This slope right here, this is a town-owned parcel. Straight across, so the little food cart, whatever it's called, is located over here. This is that new development. Help me out, Sarah, what's that? Churchill. Churchill, it's a cul-de-sac development right in here. There was a house right here that's recently removed. No, it's right here, recently removed. So that's just to orient you. There's significant slope failure on this slope right here, starting at about 15 or so feet below ground surface and not far, as you drive along Lakeshore Drive and you look out through there, there's the moan stretch, there's a hydrant, 15 feet from that hydrant, and the moan stretch is a very steep slope to, there's the top of the slope failure right there. And it's quite extensive all along. There's a culvert that is hanging out in the air. This is not a stable bank. And to propose to put wastewater back here, 100,000 gallons a day, contributing to the groundwater, and the groundwater probably flows to the north, and that slope failure is there because the sand is slumping as being slipped, as being undermined by the groundwater. And now we're proposing to introduce a lot more groundwater. This whole question of whether it is wise to add additional lots of water, whether it's treat, you know, no matter what kind of water, whether that is wise is a early critical question for this site and would require a careful study by a geotechnical engineer. Yes, Sirita. So in your report you said you were concerned about that it's destabilizing. And you use the word slumps that mitigate upslope and inward over time, slope stability analysis could be conducted. What are the consequences of these slumps? I don't know what that is, but what are the consequences? So this, if you look at the picture here, the top of that very steep, this is the top of the slump. This used to be flat out to here, but it has slid on the water table and this block down here used to be up there. It's slid down probably 20 or 25 feet. That is not, that is migrating over time. The situation that you see today is not stable. So that steep, steep slope will eventually, and it could be a year, it could be 30 years, but it is going to migrate backward south toward East Lakeshore Drive and take East Lakeshore Drive. It's Lakeshore Drive, if you did nothing, I would say in 50 or 100 years I can always guarantee you that a portion of Lakeshore Drive is going to be down at the bottom. So that's an unstable situation and it could be made more unstable by introducing wastewater up gradient of that. I don't know whether that's the case, a geotechnical engineer would have to evaluate that, but when I saw that I said, this is a concern to me and I wanted to raise it to you folks. So could it be stabilized? Yes, the way the bank was stabilized just a short distance west at the park. Yeah, a big expense, but yes, it could be stabilized. So there we have the answers. Plenty capacity, tertiary treatments required and there are several unknown factors. If you do want to go to the next steps, I would say number one, since that's really a showstopper, is to have a geotechnical evaluation done on that slope stability. If the answer there is yep, you're okay, then we need to do the onsite evaluation to either confirm or adjust my preliminary guesstimate based on experience and information from the surrounding properties. And that would be borings, monitor wells, measuring and recording the water elevation in those wells for a spring season. And that's typically, by the regs, it says March 1st to May 31st. And then would be the more detailed and then would be the pilot study. If all of steps one, two and three said yes, then we would move to a pilot study to document the nutrient removal capabilities of the site and then final design. So this, typically we ought to be thinking about two years for this whole permitting process to get to an indirect discharge permit. I think, yeah, and then further, yep, there we go, connect to pilot study, so there. There we go. Thank you. I'll pick up, we're going to tag team a little bit because Craig's wheelhouse is the hydrogeology in site. And I'll run through some of the numbers with you of what this translates into, because as I was saying about the cost of tertiary treatment, part of my job was under research with some of the other consultants as to what the cost of tertiary treatment would be. So let me bear with me. And again, we are live. And if you have questions, you can email them to me at shadd at coldchesterbt.gov. And I'll do my best to check them during the meeting and get back to you. So let me just... Can you describe what tertiary and secondary treatment looks like? Is that a above ground treatment? Yes, it is. Well, they could be buried. Typical secondary treatment is an open lagoon with aeration. Often two lagoons, one to do treatment and one to do storage. But they are typically open. This is 100,000 gallons is pretty small. So that may be possible to put that in a building or bury it. The tertiary treatment would probably be done in some large tanks. And those, again, would either be in an above ground building, the one at Sugarborsha's inside a building, I believe, but they could be buried in a giant hole. And just a reminder, if you have a question, please come forward into the microphone so the cameraman can catch it, so the people at home can catch it and state your name for the record. But I'll just sort of pick up a little bit more on that because I think we're going to get more questions about what these sort of treatments are. And sort of give some background, too, is last month a survey was mailed to property owners along East Lakeshore Drive and a property owner at Goodsell Point to look at the possibility for community septics. The Integrated Water Resources Management Plan from 2014 had identified that one of the possible solutions for wastewater treatment in this area was community septics on the non-lake side of East Lakeshore Drive and there was a green area at Goodsell Point that was a possibility for community septic. We mailed out a survey to property owners along East Lakeshore Drive and asked them if they'd be willing to be considered for community septic. We heard back from 20 of those 20 property owners forested that they'd be willing. Unfortunately, three of those were smaller parcels looking along the lake that were not suited for any sort of additional septic capacity. And the one that was along the non-lake side was over off the South Bay Circle and it was already developed in a single family home and recently put it in ground pool in a pool house in where any additional septic capacity would be on that site. So we evaluated that. So that sort of led us to evaluating the town site as a possibility. The town site, some of you have come to this room, is undergoing plans in the Parks Master Plan. It's the Bayside Paisley piece. The Parks and Rec Department has actively been looking at that for recreation over the past two years. Those plans have evolved. But as part of this study, we're allowed to roam to roam and look at all the possibilities within this area. So this was an undeveloped site, a large size that we felt obligated to take a look at. So looking a little bit more into what tertiary treatment is required and what would be required to treat effluent coming to the site, we looked to what it would take. There are two sort of models. One was a package treatment and then one was a build-in pledge of custom. Package treatment, some of you may have heard of. It's sort of like a kit you order in the mail. Except not really. But it's a lot of prefab construction. It makes use in some ways. It can save on cost. If the cost of steel is good, it can sometimes cost less. The cost of steel has been on the rise. So when we ask some of our engineers in terms of give us some ballpark numbers to work with of what we'd be looking at for a cost, they gave us both, realizing that costs fluctuate. So a custom build-in site where your tanks were poured in place versus steel was brought to the site. Slight cost difference. You might save some more money with going package treatment. But essentially what you're creating is an onsite wastewater treatment plan that requires an operator and a backup operator. So I'll go through the cost of constructing this, but there's also the cost of then employing people to maintain the system. So this was the ballpark cost of what it would take to build a system on the site, realizing that this could be plus or minus a million dollars depending on if you went with package treatment versus some sort of custom build-in place. So you're still looking at having to build some sort of collection system. Going under East Lakeshore Drive, West Lakeshore Drive, putting in all the pipes, pump stations, what have you. And that's eight million dollars. To take a look at building a facility, whether that be a package treatment or a build-in place, and this is where you get the plus or minus a million dollars, is going to be about 4.4 to build a treatment facility. Your bleach field, you're looking at being around $250,000. Permitting site design contingencies, what have you, pretty normal and a large project like this. You're looking at another 4.8. So your total estimated construction costs are going to get you up to 17.4 of their plus or minus. Again, this is all back with the envelope. And as I talk to different engineers about this, the costs only usually go up once you get into actual design and the sort of detailed work, which Craig had mentioned before. So I also asked the question of if we didn't do tertiary treatment, how much would that knock off the price? And it was only a million dollars. So you have plus or minus a million dollar factor in terms of package treatment or build-in place, plus or minus a million dollars on whether or not you do tertiary treatment. Taking a look at what costs to operate at this facility, it's interesting because we called some of those sugar brush private places. Their information is not as readily available as ours where everything's a public document. I understood completely that they were not willing to disclose actual costs to us of what costs them to maintain their systems. I had a nice conversation with some of the operators in different places and was able to sort of discern that just in staffing alone you're probably looking at somewhere around $150,000 to $200,000 a year. And you also have things like sludge removal. You would have to do a lot more investigative work to find out how much tonnage and sludge you were going to have to get rid of every year from such a facility. But I think we had estimated that a conservative operating number would be somewhere around $200,000 a year. So it seems to be feasible but expensive no matter which way you cut it. So that was sort of the second part of the process. It seems to be feasible. There aren't many other options for community septic. The people that we did hear back from that were initially interested in community septic at Goodsell Point, we took a look a little bit further into that and we actually asked if we could do test pits. We had not heard back yet about that green parcel. But we did a bit more extensive research again without probing the ground and found historical data on some of the systems that were located within that green area. And given that and also looking at some of the information of what was recently permitted around it, the septic capacity is probably somewhere in the 3,000 to 4,000 gallons per day for Goodsell Point. So again, it seems that the possibility of building several smaller systems is a lot less likely than building one larger system that would treat all the effort. Did she answer your question on that one? Yeah, you had your hand up here. There was a couple. Yeah, it's Phyllis Braden 294 Eastlayshire Drive which is right in the site here. I had a couple questions and I just was trying to think about this Goodsell Point piece. Is everybody on Goodsell Point without a system? So do you know? We're Goodsells on Goodsell Point, so if you'd like us to address that. So Goodsell Point does have on-site waste power systems. It is an area that's been identified as high risk. How many places on there are high risk? The area is high risk. The whole area? Yes, it's on Chalabed Rock. That's true. It's clay. But we've got, let's see, us, Lee, Trab. We have three sophisticated, we have four now. Five. Six. We have six. So we have six above ground, modern waste water systems. I'm just curious who you ask because she and her sister are the elder Goodsells on the point. I'm not sure who. Because we've always had a confusion that if there's 40 people up there and four people have a problem or a problem. But I'm just saying. Yeah, there's six. I appreciate the dialogue, but again, we need folks to the mic. But there's a question raised about what's who was asked. And I'll zoom out a little bit so you can look at yourselves. So East Lakes Road Drive turns into Bay Road. Right there you have I-89 and the bridge replacement that's going on. Hopefully that strikes a chord to what everybody knows or I'm talking about. So if we zoom in a little bit. When the Integrated Water Resources Management Plan was done and identified this green area as being a possibility. And so we reached out to the property owners of that green and initially they seemed interested in the possibility of looking at community septic. Historically Ben, septic system up here and septic system down here. I've not heard back yet, but again looking at some of the best fixes within that area. There does not appear to be the ability to get significant capacity from this site for a community septic system. We could just jump in. I think I was involved in doing the hydrogeology of those systems out there. I'm a little bit familiar with it from years ago and I agree entirely. There's zero chance that you're going to come anywhere close to tens of thousands of gallons of capacity on that green area. Please come to the mic. I just wanted to ask the question on that site, would they have something that could be above the ground with an alarm that has to be pumped? Can they accommodate? Any type of system you're probably going to use? So you can't put a system in like a silo system anywhere if they've ever created that? Never heard of a silo system. I know, but it's something to think about in the next couple of years before we pay 30 years of... You're not going to come close. There's low permeability soils shallow depth of water table and this is just not a site that I would advise you to put much energy into. On July 2nd, we had Mary Clark from the indirect discharge program along with Graham Bradley, Dr. Graham Bradley that were here that said it's all about the soils and so the way the state of Vermont takes a look at waste for disposal is you need to, no matter what have the soils capable of treating it no matter what sort of a high-tech filter you put on it, at the end of the day it's all about the soils. And so I would agree that it would be great to have a bunch of new technology at our disposal and I'd like to encourage people to continue to do research and find new solutions unless the state of Vermont drastically were to change the way that it takes a look at regulating wastewater it would not provide us any different solutions. I agree. It is absolutely correct. My question is just wondering in that whole area what part is cold chest or on that whole side? I know you can't use their green area in the center but what's all the other cold chest or land on the other side of them that could be used if they want to chip in and do a system there on their site? Cold chest or what do you mean by I mean I'm just saying you know where the center of their village is or their little homestead, the village of their homestead right there in the center yeah so that can't be used. Where's all the trees on the right? What kind of system could be put in? Is that so I encourage you to look at Task Corps of the Integrated Water Resources Management Plan that took a look at this area and out of their evaluation of this entire area this green area was the one that was identified as the most likely. Okay so in that red area that's right there that goes left with your yeah that whole but beyond the red area there see the house on the right right there stop yeah so that's back to you who owns all that back to you so that's not good land as far as you get back off where their properties are we have any answer to that I'm just asking for more can I answer yep I'm going up to the mic behind our house is a cliff it's all rock all that tree all those trees are on top of a cliff probably how tall is the cliff? 20 feet cliff behind our house and there are some houses back there nestled in those trees but that is all cliffs the field I believe several years ago when we were redoing some of the upgrading septics I think we had it tested and it's all clay and they said it didn't perk for putting in a common system to accommodate we looked at that and I think it was we were told that it wouldn't perk so all of our upgraded systems are above ground what's your name? can I get your name? oh I'm sorry I'm Barbara Maz I had one more question because the way you were saying how the water flow going underneath East Lakeshore Drive into the water it's fragile and we've been saying right along the East Lakeshore it's fragile so my dwelling is on just on the right of that property so how far is the wastewater from underneath there going to be floating you're going to say it wants to go this way but if my lands there is it I mean we don't know yet that we would have to install a number of monitor wells and one of the uses of those monitor wells is to determine the elevation of groundwater in all spots of groundwater elevation we then develop a groundwater flow direction map we don't know the answer I presume that probably from the middle and maybe even the back two thirds of the hazelut parcel I'm just using my best professional judgment that the flow is probably straight north to Malletts Bay there is the slight possibility that the extreme southern and southeastern portion of the parcel may flow back eastward toward there's a deep stream ravine back there we don't know for sure so that would be one of the necessary evaluations that's Smith Creek which also flows directly into the lake too so all would wind up in the lake depending yes and actually we would very unlikely it would be more difficult to get a permit to site the community septic system whether it's drip or leech field within the watershed of that Smith Creek because there's so little dilution provided but it's a tiny little creek and when I was there this summer it was basically no flow except for the lower few hundred feet so that would we can't answer that question until we have lots more information basic question I understand the community system versus something going to a sewer a sewage plant so is a sewage plant how much phosphorus do they remove do they remove it to that 0.5 that the tertiary removes or does a sewage plant remove less phosphorus it probably removes less phosphorus Sarah you may know more about the ultimate treatment plant that this pipe would go to I don't think it's tertiary but you might know oh it is so I don't know the level of phosphorus removal at that plant so some sewage plants are tertiary a few yes and some are secondary secondary interesting and then when someone was talking from the state about community system she was also talking about how much when you go through the soils how that can remove even more of the nutrients that you wouldn't want to go into the lake it certainly does a sewage plant would necessarily remove because it isn't going through the soil yes that's absolutely correct so if if where you're going is which of these putting cost aside which of these two options most reduces the phosphorus load to the lake I would say drip dispersal on the hazelut parcel and that's because a mechanical tertiary treatment plant would be required and then there's the additional polishing further nutrient removal of the 20 feet of sand on the site is acting basically like a giant sand filter that's going to give more nutrient removal than the tertiary treatment plant would very quickly before you get too far away so I can pull the other stuff back up this is the July 3rd presentation from Brian Ozwar that was given to the Plain Commission and where the sewer was going to go the South Rowinton airport parkway facility was upgraded in 2011 and does have tertiary treatment okay great so then okay so then let's say we look at the existing situation in where there's septic systems that are as there are all around the Colchester and we know that where the for example came up before where it isn't that there are failing systems in the IWRM it's identifying areas of high risk that doesn't mean that people are polluting there it means that there's a high risk in that area good so point is a high risk so is like Coates Island so is Porter's Point, Mills Point and along that inside along Eastern West Lakeshore Drive on the lake side so and we're looking at okay a small part of town that's high risk and wondering if there's something that could be done that would actually make a difference in water quality even though we're I would say we haven't done all of the we can't specifically relate whether there are whether there are failing systems that are polluting the lake that can't get that information so we don't actually know if we've got a few systems that might be or there's a lot of systems but just looking at the systems that are there we've got the ones that have issues that are right along the lake but then we've got so many of these dwellings are on the high side so and in those cases there is more depth to bedrock and so I'm just wondering a septic system that's working so let's just look for a minute at all the ones on the high side all along Eastern West Lakeshore Drive so a septic system that's working is it going to be just as good or potentially even better for water quality in the lake than closing down all those septic systems and sending that to a sewage plant even if it's tertiary and into the lake what's the relationship to are we making a lot of progress or not on the ones that are already working well do you mean working or fully compliant? I mean the town I mean I'm not sure what I mean Sarah but I'm trying to get at it's not like anybody's saying that if there are how many units, 268 units in the east we're still looking at the best case so there's our septic systems that we have out there we shut those down and we might do the drip system comparably or even the sewer plant I could try give me a chance or the sewer plant what's how they can compare to our existing I don't think you have enough information now and I think it would be a fantastic five-year PhD project for somebody to figure out really there's and the reason I say that is that for existing septic systems I think very likely range from providing very little nutrient removal to providing spectacular nutrient removal and you'd have to evaluate each one of them to figure that out so there's no if we had 20 systems that provided very little but we have what's our total units there is it 389 289 so if we have 289 69 that do really well but we've got 20 that don't and you know that a quarter of them have no permit record so and because we actually haven't done water testing specifically to say there's human E. coli coming from these systems so I'm just trying to understand soils I'm just trying to understand soils and whether septic systems are working properly do a good job they do okay but I'm figuring he's the soil because we keep putting down septic systems and very much and I'm trying to understand how the septic system compares with the community system which compares with this sewage plant they're both septic systems they are loaded at similar loading rates so whether it's a septic system for a house or a septic system for 100,000 gallons they're going to have if they are in the right soils and far enough above water table they're going to have equal nutrient removal capabilities okay and then one last question this different it's really interesting what you know the questions that you raised to be answered around are we looking at some issues on least base lake shore drive you know some problems for the road and looking at that whatever we do on this land might impact a situation that you're concerned about might turn out not to be a problem what you suggested that it might be need to be looked at I'm just thinking that probably since the town is looking at doing something on that lot would it be that if if buildings were going to be put on there and therefore there's more impervious surface on that lot if trees were going to be taken down and buildings put on the pavement put in would that in that situation similar to if we left trees but did a but did this community system when you were asking something would would it be a good idea for the town also to look at the issues of if they put buildings and pavement in there how that would impact that same slope in the same way I would say it would depend on the scale of the buildings in the area of parking lot if you're going to add say I don't know what my threshold would be of nervousness if I were on your seat but if you're going to add if you're going to put 5% of the coverage of that parcel into impermeable not be worried if you're going to cover it with 60% of you know a big huge building and a parking lot I would I would say boy we got to get a geotech engineer to check that out so it's that scale but I can't be more precise than that thank you so much I appreciate it I have a question for you you based your evaluation on 100,000 gallons per day yes how many properties with that compass typically let's say private residences typical 450 or 500 gallons per lot roughly for a four bedroom house okay so how many with 100,000 gallons who's got a calculator you've done some evaluation the numbers were given to us from the select board of what they were looking at for total flows with the interbay area taking a look at the 209 properties that encompass both commercial as well as residential so it's not necessarily street poor calculation in terms of homes because this is not all single family can't you do bedrooms homes no it's not necessarily what about the debate one at a time please you divide 100,000 gallons by 500 gallons which is a typical 3-4-5 bedroom house it's 200 houses 200 houses so it's that range and commercial flows can be sometimes 15 per employee yeah they can be tiny or they can be large so yeah so an office which just has people flush on the toilet is 13.5 to 15 gallons per day per person so that's 30 people a 30-person office is roughly equivalent to a 4-bedroom house losing terribly round numbers so let me just ask this question Neil we've identified not the town but we've identified about 51 properties east lake shore drive that may be at risk if you count them from Bayside to Norris corner about let's say 50 so that would be a quarter of 100,000 gallons correct so about 25,000 gallons if you had a 25,000 gallons a day the permitting process would get lesser I assume absolutely much less yes so if you try to do the whole kit and caboodle yes you may be looking at those numbers but if you're just trying to solve the wastewater problem it could be as little as 50 or 60 houses and the big commercial property in the district correct me if I'm wrong is Hazelit and my understanding is that Hazelit does a wonderful job of taking care of their septic in the back lots so would you force Hazelit to come into a community system went for 50 years it's been doing a good job again the select board's task to the playing commission was to take a look at the entirety of the inner bay area and not creating variables like that it was to take a look at sort of an all or nothing approach and I would caution you to not do a linear reduction of say to your 50 houses versus the 2 or 300 houses and take that 17 million dollars and divide it by that same number because if these scattered if these problem leach fields are scattered then you're going to have a very expensive collection system for a small amount of sewage so it's not going to be a linear reduction of the 17 million oh sure do you think that we'd still be in the secondary treatment area I think you can go up to 20,000 gallons without needing to go to secondary so you can serve a lot of houses with 20,000 gallons 30,000 gallons is the trigger sorry just looked at the table in the regs primary basically septic tank effluent can be managed through the indirect discharge permit without requiring any further treatment beyond septic tank up to 30,000 gallons a day I see Barb Stafford 824 East Lakes shore I just have a question about cost if we do go with the tertiary system would sounds great 17 million almost 500,000 is a lot is it going to be spread out through the whole Colchester community so the planning commission's charge was to evaluate the alternatives and to provide them to the select board so that would be up to the select board in terms of how they would structure such a cost because that's huge I mean that's it's more than the sewer system it's several million dollars more than the sewer are we talking the new system no the tertiary the community septic I'm talking about that's the 17 million so but your answer is we don't know yet stay tuned quick question about the 30,000 number yes so when you conducted all your tests with the 100,000 gpd number per day gpd there you go would you have to redo all those tests for soil quality for parcels that could accommodate 30,000 we would need we would need to know yes we would need to evaluate all three of those capacities that I talked about for a 30,000 gallon system or even 29,000 to stay below the to stay in primary treatment only and not trigger for secondary treatment you would still need to answer the question which way is the groundwater going how deep is it is there room for the induced groundwater mound and is there nutrient removal so all those questions the three capacities that I talked about would have to be answered and how long would it take to do that same thing a couple of years Brian Costello just want to follow up on the picture that Jack painted about a smaller system that would serve just the most at risk properties which just say for argument's sake is around 50 of them Craig you brought up the question I mean the comment that it might not be that cost effective if they're far flown but it's my understanding that most of the most properties at highest risk are on East Lakeshore Drive I don't know if there have been any identified on West Lakeshore Drive as failing or at risk we currently have a failure on West Lakeshore Drive close to East Lakeshore Drive no okay so but anyway to paint the picture they're mostly on East Lakeshore Drive and I believe the town's long term plan is to improve Lakeshore Drive for bikes and pedestrians so if you were to put a multi-use path there the same as what's planned on West Lakeshore Drive and the same as what was just built further on the west end of West Lakeshore Drive then I think it would be very cost effective multi-use path with the collection lines underneath it so that'd be a factor in totaling up all the cost and as far as the slope stabilization north of East Lakeshore Drive goes if you look at that in the long term it's probably necessary to stabilize East Lakeshore Drive regardless of what's done with the Hazel property and also it's a section of public Lakeshore that I feel strongly that should be developed for public access it would almost double the amount of public Lakeshore that we have now well it would double the amount in the Bayside area for public access so if that was treated as a separate cost of stabilizing that bank then that would make a smaller system seem more reasonable if you added the the ancillary benefits of stabilizing that for to save Lakeshore Drive for public access to the lake and for better safety for pedestrians and bicycles all along the whole length of Lakeshore Drive looking at the big picture all together since these are all ticket items I think would be a good way to look at it it's obviously a big number Maryland Souls that's obviously a big number and it's important to you know as a town we all of our town we love Colchester how government everybody's trying to think of okay how can we do things differently how can we come business looks at okay I thought I might do something one way how could I do it another way and I guess I recognize having sat on the select board I recognize the Planning Commission takes the direction from the select board and you're doing a good job of bringing out information that's helpful all around I hope that the town remains creative and not blindsided in taking in all kind of information that is everybody's been learning over the past couple of months you know just because the project area that was defeated on the sewer was the project area if the issue really is water quality in the lake then the issue really is the systems that potentially fail the tops the land side the non lake side and east lakes or drive does not show up as high risk it's the lake side I don't understand why you all were looking at the big project area that a sewer was going to look at I hope when it gets the select board that they'll consider okay if we're really concerned about water quality where the you know those 50 ones that Jack mentioned that's probably about how many were counting on the lake side right so the point is there on the lake side we've all heard about the depth to the rock on that lake side is interesting to hear today that the land could be good it was really cool to hear you speak about those drip systems that we learned about from the person from the state and Sarah thank you for all the people that you've brought to you know the citizens we've learned along with all of you guys and it was like oh okay and that can go through the trees and you know because those other things we should sort of picture it there's a way for that to potentially even work with someone else that they might want to do on the site you know obviously that's a lot of money okay if we're just looking to address the issue at hand which is water quality hmm is there some way that over the next couple of years if we keep our thoughts open that something will show up to do this kind of a thing along with something else on that piece of property the town has and actually just addressed the properties on the lake side and that also pulls off some of the concerns around development increasing at an increased rate because it's so beautiful in the bay and it would make sense there could be some people sitting on property that might you know if the town pays to solve the issues on piece of property for wastewater okay you know we'll develop it now and there's concerns around taxpayers paying for that so I'm just putting out there some thoughts that I hope over the next few years all the things that you guys have been looking at I hope there's some good ideas that show up and we don't just say it has to be this whole big area and that we bring things down to solving the actual whatever the problem is yeah you do you go right after them I have our narrow scope of where we need to finish here can I ask a question yeah and I feel for you I feel for you guys we're finishing off this see if this is part of our puzzle yeah I'd like to offer in terms of just a little bit of history as your staff person is how we came to what the study area is is Fire District 2 was taking a look at serving sewer to a much broader area of Colchester, including Pinebridge, Prim when the town stepped in and took over that project that area was reduced to the area that was noted in the Integrated Water Resources Management Plan an EPA demonstration project that was in 2014 as to what these high-risk areas are and East Lakeshore Drive it was concluded that you could do community systems potentially on the non-lake side good sell point there was that one area and West Lakeshore Drive there were no areas suitable for community systems so that's why those three different areas were included and the sewer area was reduced down to that I think to your point Rich that's the select board's purview in terms of chopping it up even more so or revisiting or breaking out the components but what was then given to the playing commission was just that in terms of the area so our task is still in there filling that little can I ask a question I just want to clarify because this is where I'm a little confused my understanding is like let's say there were 50 houses that were polluting the bay we don't know those houses and we have no way of finding oh I think the point was Jack was just counting on the lake side East Lakeshore but let me just add one point as we have done nothing over these last 20 years the Munchin Estates the Landtree properties already have put in state of the art mount systems they're already pumping across so those 51 that we assume are at risk on East Lakeshore Drive you've got to take those Landtree the big mega mansions green mega mansions out of the equation or you're going to have to shut down all of the investment they've made also with the Landtrees those mount systems at Norse's corner have been working well for a number of years over 20 those are quite old and the Munchin I believe was the best fix as well for the farming system and there are only some of those units that are allowed to be year round I'm not sure that so at any rate I just urge caution these are older in place systems so Sarah back to high risk areas we know that the whole area that was in the area that was defeated for the sewer high risk so the medium risk I believe so help me confirm what's in the IWRM so the medium risk the L2 on the high side I think we're deviating quite a bit but we keep using this high risk word and we've got medium risk within the area that these guys are making decision about Chair is I have a hydrogeologist that has been kind enough to join us tonight here and if there were not any further questions yeah that's a that's part of a policy thing again okay I just I just keep hearing the word okay I hear you but I would you do me a favor and use the word high risk and medium risk when you talk about the area because it's high risk and medium risk that these guys are having make a decision on it is not only high risk we're not okay we will be there okay you're right I understand okay right now we have credit it's very helpful super helpful really appreciate you guys bringing your education in your report you said that no growth there shouldn't be any building on the site if it was installed no I just wondered what you meant by like buildings or you know so let's go to that spot you remember what page I just I'm trying to I just can there be trails on oh sure sure parking lots yes yes buildings and there can be lots of anything that's not in the footprint of the disposal areas is fair game for use for buildings for parking trails you can even run a trail through a portion of the wastewater field if it were not directly over one of the dispersal pipelines there will be there will be alleys in the dispersal area where the main feeder lines go solid pipes that then branch out to the dispersal pipes those could potentially be have a walking trail or a bike trail on on top of that there might be a 10 foot wide path through where down below frost line is this main feeder pipeline that could be a spot for a walking trail or a bike path but on the disposal fields themselves you would not want to have walking trails how far away should we have the gig be very short distance a couple of feet five feet yeah they can just one more question the land for that part was bought at 1.1 million dollars in 2004 and that was not included in the cost right so with that I mean where is that cost I mean would we buy that back who would buy that back from the town so the town purchased it for 1.1 and that factor was not factored into the acquisition cost the land was not calculated into the 17.4 okay and the town owns it so the town was considering installing a leech field audit that might preclude other recreational amenities that might be something that might want for more public discussion right and would it need to go back to the community for a vote since I feel like the does the community on that land now or could the select court make a decision on the use of that land that would be our future that would be our future meeting okay that was in the questions that you were going to say yes Brian do you have a question just related to the valuation of this property and the future use of it remember that the lake shore 600 or 700 feet lake shore as well as half of the property that is in leech field but getting back to this portion of your task to find parcels town owned parcels suitable for septic disposal there's lots of I believe there's lots of soil of the same type in the area this ADA soil around the high school and upper bayside and all of those back in the former circ corridor how many other areas were considered besides I only looked at this parcel my general knowledge of the area as you go east the sand gets thinner the water table gets closer to the ground surface and the conditions become much less favorable for a large scale that doesn't mean there may not be either a public or privately owned large parcel of 10 or 15 or 20 acres that may have deep sands I don't think you can assume that that whole big area that every big parcel has 15 or 20 or 30 feet of unsaturated sand the way this parcel does how many other parcels did this board consider so I think that was provided earlier was that we asked for other parcels within the area privately owned sites and none of the others in the area were deemed to be suitable so if you're speaking about parcels they're outside the area the high school the circlands are all outside of the study area well they're town owned they have to be in the study area to be considered yes could you consider parcels outside of the study area we were to look at a very specific study area again the high school lands are separate than town owned lands again we're directed by the select board you were directed to the select board to look to not look at any suitable parcels outside of the of the service area directed in this specific area this specific area this specific problem I think to Craig's point of with a parcel like this this is perhaps the best parcel to evaluate within the area it wasn't really suitable to take a look at other lesser quality lands outside the area but we don't know their lesser quality without looking at them maybe so but the cost the time commitment that would go into testing those lands honestly wouldn't be worth it especially when you consider that transporting sewage from the area that we studied to an area that's outside of the study area would eventually be more cost of course if it was far flung but the areas that I'm talking about are adjacent to the study area maybe so but they're still not town owned they still do not have the power to study them it's well or use them for this purpose base upper base side is town owned land and I believe it's within the study area so upper base side is developed to the park what percentage of it so I think one of the attractive things about the base side hazelut piece was the soils were virtually untouched because that does factor into evaluation for soils you have to have undisturbed uncompacted soils well I just like to suggest that there are other options that could be studied not at a high cost but just on a soils maps preliminary basis you're very welcome thank you so much before people leave and just serve a segue we'll talk about this under future agendas we are contemplating a site trip to some of these sites that you mentioned in your presentation including sugar bush looking to pull that together and have a small bus it would be almost a full day excursion with limited seeing capacity but if anybody from the public is interested in joining the planning commission on that please email me at spadshadd at ColtrusterVT.gov we'll try and find an echo away to the up seats but we are hopefully going to take a look at what some of these systems are again some great people that could give me numbers specifically but I'm hoping that when we go there and ask questions they seem very forthright and hopefully that will be a good experience I think the range you were told of two or three full time employees to run this is not an unreasonable number most of the large ski areas and large facilities that have these also have public community water systems and often the same people that are the wastewater treatment plant operators are also the certified water system operators here you wouldn't need that so there may be some savings there and some of the medium size systems around the state contract the operating services out to contracting companies rather than having them be a municipal employee that's an option but that's way down the road but it's that range of $100,000 to $200,000 a year for annual operating and water quality monitoring and reporting that's a good ballpark number to use more to come but thank you one question for the permanent process for this is this completely different than Act 250 or would this fall under that it might or some other sort of a NEPA process Act 250 is called a little NEPA process in the National Environmental Protection Act and with the different criteria of how it impacts archeology, historic resources for fauna etc depending on what funding source would look like from this you might actually trigger NEPA itself which is a more complex more complex federal so sort of a half answer to that topic is that we did check with the the state surface water quality people who administer the phosphorus TMDL for Lake Champlain and they specifically said that they would not have jurisdiction or would not have concerns for an indirect discharge large scale onsite system like I've put up here that they that those these kinds of systems are basically not within the purview of the phosphorus TMDL so is that how you interpret okay so that's one hurdle that I that I identified in my report and it's a hurdle that appears we have gotten over although if this were to get to an NEPA or Act 250 the hurdle is you know you're not done until the fat lady sings or whatever the phrase is that's still and so you don't know for sure you know there there will be potentially federal review this EPA Region 1 of great information to start with it's a lot more information that we had going into it so thank you very much just one more don't mind Jack Scully I'm looking at the community center initiative of 2014 and it identifies parcels that could be used upper and lower Bayside Park 22 acres the hazelit Bayside property 14 acres the school lands which would have to be negotiated but they were also identified but let me just read this one piece for you quickly some remote sensing was used to determine that the existing upper field at Bayside Park would be the best area to accommodate a wastewater system from their findings the project area is capable of supporting an onsite wastewater system for the town now I don't know how much capacity is there but certainly in 2014 we had looked at this and we had identified not the hazelit Bayside property but some of the existing Bayside properties that the town owns as having enough capacity possibly for a community center that was done by we had a grad student project every year I think it's NR 206 or something of that nature at UVN Rubin seems to go natural resources makes available to us or other communities graduate engineers or environmental studies people that will take a look at things they were supposed to do test pits they were not able to do it so that was really remote sensing it was just taking a look at soil this is a lot more in depth than that just saying that perhaps that should be looked at at some point thank you thank you everybody that came tonight come on up oh you're waiting for me okay definitely appreciate it I haven't got any emails yet apologies if something went to the spam we're all set questions here oh there's probably I thought the moss the e-mail yeah I thought he made a really good point I just want to say that I think he made a really good point and we can read that I mean it's very short but I think he's not alone but I think he's feeling oh absolutely and we could read that for you but it was basically saying people are on hold on whether to some people are on hold I believe correct me if I'm wrong they're on hold about whether to put in a septic system or not because they're waiting to see if the town is going to put in a system they're just saying could you please make a decision soon what the town is doing that's why we're staying on track we're finishing this but I thought it was a good point absolutely agree alright and of those people can they put a good system in where they are I don't know I don't know this person obviously this one person is saying oh the mosses were here today oh they were is that the good soul point okay so that was the person sitting behind oh ahead I don't know we can't answer that we don't want to jump to any real fast conclusions either because it's so noisy the rest of the community I put one in when I moved in I didn't want to wait two years to decide this either it's our decision very good we can move on thank you yes if I have one question that maybe you can look into they bring up other property one of it is a school property but I understand you can't really build anything in school property except school structure so the school was asked by the town when they were considering the sewer service area whether or not they wanted to be included and they said no they were on their own system but this discussion of using school property for another community system you can't really do that that complicates the separation of resources and what happened that's what I understand and there are existing act 250s where they're in endangered areas and a whole variety of other reasons and factors they looked at the best site but it could be considered if the school was asked and the school considered it sure I think it's more complicated than that because of act 60 I know the act 250 restrictions but there are a lot of I don't think that covers the entire property such as the woods the hazel property and adjacent to the hazel property are those encumbered by the act 250 the current stipulations or is it you're asking if the entirety of the high school property is encumbered by act 250 and would the answer be yes okay and would it be possible it's not act 250 it's act 60 but you can't use school property for anything but school use that's act 60 not act 250 that's for buildings and such would that be for in-ground septic system as well it can be used for schools in-ground system but I don't think you can use it for a community system because it's not a school use so if that's not possible but I think if you could look into it to see if it might be possible then we have another option I think the cost would be the same our newest member hit it on the head in terms of cost you could study a variety of different areas increase the amount of money you're spending on the study the best site we found that there was the ability to do a large system on that site and so I'm not sure what sense it would make to look at a variety of other sites other than to slow a project down just for instance you could do two systems that were only that didn't that will only not tertiary but secondary just two leach fields would be much less expensive than doing the tertiary inter-connected and still require anyway isn't that the septic system the school has already they have been direct discharge already on that on their land again from going to tertiary to secondary reduced by a million dollars you already have 17.4 so it doesn't really save a whole lot of money to try and split up different fields which might still be viewed as being one system by the state unless it wasn't even secondary it was just a leach field that's where the cost savings comes in cost you do 150,000 or 30,000 is the cutoff 30 so 130,000 for East Lakeshore 130,000 for West Lakeshore how it controls this is just for review what can be correct the point is that there are other options that should be it could be forwarded to the select board rather than just the school I mean I think they were asked if they wanted to be part of this conversation they said no I thought you were referring to whether they wanted to be in the service area and they said no they weren't asked if they would consider hosting a community system I think it's one and the same no it's not they were asked if they wanted to pay to be in the service area to dispose their sewage when they already have a perfectly fine system got you I thought this was on the task to find areas that are suitable and that's to find areas that are suitable not just to look at one the task stepped into a very difficult task as chair and I think you thank the public for coming and providing their comments typically after the planning commission has their own discussion amongst themselves without interruption from the public and so is that what your intention is at this time that is my intention at this time okay I moved to approve the minutes alright back to the minutes sorry to interrupt I'll set one corrections I have a couple two corrections one was where it says in the second paragraph number three, second paragraph Mr. Tarranelli instead of H-I-E H-I-R-E it should be H-I-G-H-E-R right the first sentence and the second paragraph yeah the first point where it says respectfully instead of respectively I'm sorry I can't hear you sorry there's also one point in the minutes where it says respectfully instead of respectively minor issue that just bothered me okay so I'm sorry number three, second paragraph you're talking about mark you just used H-I-R-E okay this is just for me I was confused there's a sentence that I think it's you Sarah that said she stated and it was a confusing sentence to me it was about 112 residents and 1,363,029 commercial you referenced in that and the sentence starts with she stated yeah she said that total build out at the time that no additional construction could be placed on land under land use regulations resulted in 112 new residential units and 1.3 square feet of new commercial so should I cross off the area between the allies as being confusing what were you saying I'm sorry just what were you saying in that sentence she stated that the total build out the total build out for the service area and then I had parentheses at the time that no additional construction could be placed on land under land use regulations comma resulted in 112 new residential units and 1.3 of new commercial so does that area between the commas is that confusing to that you said it was to me but it sounds like everybody else you're just defining what build out is yeah maybe a confusing one I understood it sounds like we need to word search for respectfully is anybody found that enough I think I saw that one I didn't highlight it though I think I read over that one quickly you're doing great forgot where it was there isn't a third pair number three though there is something that's not a sentence I don't know it's stuck in there in the middle of that paragraph says the inner bay neighborhood and the proposed service area I don't know what that means number three it's the first page paragraph three first paragraph right in the middle of it there's a sentence that says the inner bay neighborhood service area about redevelopment share view of concerns brought up during the main walk and talked about redevelopment of East Lakeshore Drive the inner bay neighborhood so it should be a comma there and not a capital T okay I still haven't found this respectfully you're doing the word search we'll find it quick oh there it is page two it's the first sentence second sentence third line it says respectfully two boys got it that's that yeah okay favorite with corrections aye so I told you guys that I think that we might be in for September 6 which is a Friday for a bus trip and I had recommended that perhaps we might want to cancel the meeting on the 3rd in lieu of that because I think you're going to get into the decision making process I think it would be helpful before you do that to have this bus trip and take a look at the types of systems sounds good to me and I realized it's during the day on a Friday I'd be thankful to get one or two of you I don't expect all of you I know that you all have commitments and I very much appreciate your time we are going to try and have a camera crew with us it'll be a relaxing field trip so which meeting are we canceling September 3 the next meeting in lieu of what are we calling it the tour de poo tour de poo tour de poo can I just say one thing about the Burlington packet that we got from them the information that we got from them from them about their proposal for higher density zoning in certain areas I mean when I looked at that it looked like that would impact I'm really concerned about them releasing the density in the new north bank because I feel like it would add to our traffic going through Colchester but when I looked at that packet it didn't look like this what they're proposing will impact Colchester at all with traffic is that accurate I think it's a valid concern but I don't believe that what they're doing at this time would greatly impact us but will you give us a heads up if you see that if you see they're making a proposal that would increase traffic on 127 so a lot of the way that we evaluate traffic in the state of Vermont is through the active 50 process and so you usually wait until a specific quadrant and then they take a look at what the traffic impacts are going to be and how to mitigate it and what happens and they look at neighboring municipalities they just look at road quarters at road quarters so a much broader perspective you know other than Cambrian Heights I'm trying to think of anything in Burlington that's had that sort of possible impact it's been a lot of infill development but not a singular large project and then if you take a look at places like Cambrian Rise which are like one bedroom studios they're on the bus route and they don't really try and minimize the amount of parking that's there and available to people too so a lot of the people that are there are not as auto oriented and they're trying to make linkages to the existing transit system so I'd say even larger projects might not have a huge impact on the 127 quarter but that's a good question to put to regional planning more so in terms of regional impacts so okay thank you those are good questions so for next meeting we have a couple people that want to go on the tour I was playing along with the tour okay who else? Serita I want to skip school for it I gladly would like you to know hair definition I'll have to see do you need an answer right now? I just want to make sure we're on board if we skip that meeting because after that meeting you want to see about get this deal so the second meeting in September we're going to have to start to coalesce all the information that you have so far and evaluate it you're saying it's going to be a working meeting it's not just all funding gains and septic systems we don't present one solution do we present all three and the information and cons so that matrix that we developed we'll be taking that and we'll be fully getting into a report there might be a preferred alternative but it's going to be close up this is where I have to do sanity checks and talk in general if 14 million was rejected and we just priced something out at 17 million it's like aren't we done? we can go study sites over and over again but that's definitely our task is pretty straightforward do we have our best case you did a great job pricing it was a question that nobody knew what the answer was you gave us an answer with a confidence interval of a million dollars so 16 million compared to 14 million and we're not even sure who would be paying that absolutely that final package we sent to the select board we didn't have 1, 2, 3 and maybe a little letter of what their feelings are but these ideas of hybrid solutions you get to these things that you know well if you do the 50 that some people think it's debatable are the most at risk and it comes in at 30,000 gallons per day which could be a much smaller cost so are we still open to hybrid solutions well I think part of these go into the do nothing or additional study is how do you determine which are the highest risk right now we have a failure it's not an east lake sure drive west lake side so how do you determine which are the properties that you want to connect and what have you those are questions I put into further study which we can pass back to the select board and say you could change up the area you could do more study and evaluate and try and find out which are the worst offenders but for what the playing commission has been given to take a look at the same area and the same gallonage were the alternatives so there's like a footnote like recommendations maybe further recommendations further study definitely I think so we know how much we now know how much a community system costs we now know how much the sewer system costs can we look and say there are 299 89 89 okay I got mixed up 98 okay 289 properties some probably have new systems that work fine we just don't know we can look at permits we can weed those out easy enough let's say there's 250 just a number how much would it take to bring each property a septic system individual system now would they cost $20,000 for a typical system so you are looking within the study area is the best fix those best fixes can be anywhere from unfortunately just a holding tank and so the initial cost is the cost of playing a tank in the ground not very much but with a holding tank you aren't treating the effluent your pain have a pump every couple weeks so the ongoing costs are quite high and then you have the really innovative high filtration systems that are like $40,000 to put it so you have a whole variety of different types of systems you can't put kind of an average in there saying okay if everybody upgraded their system this would be the total cost those people accumulatively would put into it you know what I'm saying you could do something like a similar worst case scenario or maybe the best case scenario that you could put in a pretreatment system for everybody and what those sort of costs would look like we know that that's not going to happen for all of the properties right it's hard to pinpoint a true replacement cost within that area but I understand the question that you have I think it's a good point I'm just not sure how you quantify yeah okay anything else today no thank you so much all right I'll make a motion to adjourn I'll second bye thank you guys