APPROVED
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 5, 2005

The special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held Thursday, May 5, 2005 at 7:30 p.m. in Meeting Room A at Madison Town Campus.

MEMBERS PRESENT

Christine Poutot, Terry Macy, Garry Leonard, John Alsobrook, Ilisa Ring, Ron Caserta

ALTERNATES PRESENT

Christopher Traugh, Ron Clark and Tim Millhiser

OTHERS PRESENT

Marilyn Ozols, Planning and Zoning Administrator; Mary Haburay, Land Use Assistant; Stewart MacMillan, Town Engineer; Samile Keeler, Commission Clerk; and members of the public. The meeting was taped by MCTV.

Chairman Joseph MacDougald called the special meeting to order at approximately 7:40 p.m. Mr. MacDougald outlined the format of a public hearing and the remaining business associated with this particular hearing. Mr. MacDougald appointed Ron Clark to sit for James Byrne.

PUBLIC HEARING:

05-02D+CSP. NATHAN’S LANE. Map 35, Lots 20 & 25. Owner: The Seashore Construction Company; Applicant: Town of Madison. Request for Special Exception Permit for municipal school bus facility. Coastal Site Plan Review required. Continued from April 7, 2005.

Stewart MacMillan, Town Engineer/Director of Public Works, began by responding to concerns raised by Nicolle Burnham, P.E., at the last portion of the hearing regarding the sound study. Mr. MacMillan reported that he met with the Town’s consultant and the Commission’s consultant to determine the next course of action. Tony Agresti of TRC Environmental Corporation presented a more comprehensive sound study entitled Appendix C Nathan’s Lane School Bus Depot Sound Study Prepared for The Town of Madison Department of Public Works & Engineering, dated May 2005, as EXHIBIT CS. Mr. Agresti outlined his experience of 20 years of conducting noise studies. In response to questions raised from the Commission and the public since the preliminary study, Mr. Argresti stated that, working with Brooks Acoustics Corporation (Commission’s sound engineer), he followed up to the preliminary sound study initially presented.

Mr. MacDougald questioned where the closest bus is in relation to homes; and then asked whether topography played a role in measuring sound. Mr. Agresti pointed to the closest residence on Figure 1, an aerial photograph included in his report, and responded that the closest residence is approximately 270’ away and that there are no berms present which would block sound. Mr. MacDougald then requested clarification that each idling bus drops by 1DBA in sound level in the study done on 3 buses and questioned what happens when there are 37 more buses idling. Mr. Agresti clarified that sound is measured based on distance, so to look at it that way, all the buses would have to be compacted in the exact same spot. As you spread the buses out, the distance increases and the sound contribution from each one is reduced. Mr. MacDougald asked if Mr. Agresti is able to predict, based on the distribution of where the buses will be, what the effect of having a “boatload” of buses will be. Mr. Agresti stated that could be calculated and stated that if you went to a fourth bus, you would add another decibel or so; a fifth bus might add another decibel; and after about seven buses or so, you probably start adding about ½ decibel and then less and less and less. Ms. Poutot asked the Applicant to clarify that all buses would not idle at one time and questioned how many would. Mr. MacMillan stated that approximately 7 buses would idle at one time. Mr. MacDougald then asked what the actual noise would be for double the buses. Mr. Agresti stated that the actual sound would be about 49 or 50 and that it would not be much higher with 6 buses. Mr. Traugh requested that Mr. Agresti discuss the length of time from the spike up to the spike down regarding the train as shown on the graph in Figure 2. Mr. Agresti informed the Commission that the length of time is 3-4 minutes. Mr. Traugh further requested clarification that the beginning of the spike up to the end of the spike down is the length of time from the beginning of the noise event to the end, which Mr. Agresti clarified is approximately 15 seconds.

Mr. Macy questioned why tests weren’t conducted in the morning when the buses are running. Mr. Agresti stated that the background noise in the morning would outweigh the actual sound due to heavy commuter traffic and I-95. Mr. Traugh asked Mr. Agresti to address the length of time that the buses took to pull out and come back in. Mr. Agresti stated that 3 buses took just over 1 ½ minutes to pull out and approximately 3 minutes to return and back into the spots. Ms. Poutot questioned whether the meter was located 5’ from the ground on the other side of the railroad tracks or above the railroad tracks. Mr. Agresti stated that the meters were 5’ above the ground on the inside. Ms. Poutot then questioned where that leaves the railroad tracks in relation to the meter. Mr. Agresti stated that the microphone was above the tracks because he could see the buses and so the microphone could see the buses as well. Mr. Clark questioned where the backup beepers are located on the bus. Mr. MacMillan replied that the beepers are located under the bumper. Mr. Clark asked where the majority of the bus noise comes from. Mr. Agresti stated that bus noise comes from 1) exhaust, 2) engine, and 3) tires and tracking with the road. Mr. Clark questioned what effect a fence or dense foliage on the northern border of the tracks would have in emanating sound. Mr. MacDougald further questioned how a fence or foliage would affect the noise from a train going by. Mr. Agresti stated that foliage would not be effective unless you have a very dense 100’ buffer and that he could not say how effective a fence would be without calculations, but some sound would be reflected back. Mr. MacDougald questioned whether the beepers could be muffled. Mr. Agresti stated that he’s never seen a muffle because the purpose of the beepers is to be heard. Mr. Macy asked if a constructed berm is a viable sound barrier and how tall it would have to be. Mr. Agresti stated that a berm could be an effective a sound barrier but that it would have to be engineered. The berm would have to be higher than the source of the sound, and higher than the tracks. Mr. Macy recollected earlier testimony that building any kind of barrier could actually make the sound a lot worse, bouncing the sound back. Mr. MacMillan pointed out that other testimony received suggested that may not be true. Mr. Agresti stated that the sound coming from one side of the train would propagate out towards the homes. The sound on the other side would just bounce between the train and the barrier, and so a lot of that sound may be directed upwards. Mr. Bilcheck noted that testing has been done on the closest dwellings, but questioned what the effect would be on the houses down below (even though it’s a greater distance) that don’t have the natural berm of the train track blocking the noise, and whether any studies were done. Mr. Agresti stated that the natural berm is not high enough to be an effective sound barrier and therefore studies were not done for houses further away.

Mr. MacMillan next stated that the next subject he wished to address pertained to Margaret Welch’s issue regarding providing a water-dependent use, which she viewed as some kind of a vantage point of the marsh. Mr. MacMillan stated that they don’t feel they should do that; not because of the cost or the nuisance, but because it doesn’t seem to make much sense. Mr. MacMillan stated that he doesn’t think very many people want to come down to the bus parking lot, park their car, and then walk to see the wetlands when there are so many other places in Madison where they could do it in a more charming area. However, Mr. MacMillan stated that they have provided a plan that does have a pathway and provides two parking spaces, and noted that the requisite signs would need to be erected announcing to the public that these were public access areas. Michael Ott, Assistant Town Engineer, demonstrated the plan submitted as EXHIBIT CT. Mr. Ott discussed various signage that would need to be in place, including parking space signs, a standard DEP brown and white public access sign, and a sign at the edge of the roadway directing people to the path. Mr. Ott reported that Ms. Welch stated the path may be kept mowed or may be a wood chipped service path. Ms. Welch had also indicated that a viewing platform would not be necessary because from a couple of locations on-site, at ground level, you can see all the way across the tidal wetlands out to the water. Mr. MacDougald asked how much of the path goes across currently contaminated soil. Mr. Ott responded that the disturbed area of the site where Woodard & Curran has identified potential contamination is approximately 300’. Mr. MacDougald then asked whether, after remediation, Mr. Ott would expect to see some contamination at that site at the edge; and will it be contaminated and capped or will it be removed. Mr. Ott responded that a good portion of the 300’ will be removed; some portion of it will be in fill where it will be in a fill depth high enough to eliminate direct exposure to the contaminated soils.

Regarding Ms. Welch’s testimony about the residential versus commercial levels of remediation, Mr. Traugh questioned what the remediation is expected to be for the pathway. Mr. MacMillan stated that the pathway is not being used for a residential use and that people walking on a path does not constitute residential. Mr. MacMillan further clarified that residential is someone’s house on the land, 24/7 people living there. Therefore, Mr. MacMillan clarified that the expected level of remediation is to the light industrial standard. Mr. Macy questioned what kind of maintenance the pathway would require. Mr. MacMillan proposed a woodchip/wood mulch path as opposed to a permanent, hard surface path. Therefore, every year Mr. MacMillan stated they’d have to go in and put more woodchips down. Mr. Macy more specifically questioned what kind of continued remediation would occur in the contaminated portion of the site. Mr. MacMillan stated that it would be designed in a non-erodible fashion and monitored.

Mr. MacDougald asked what other opportunities exist in that area for the public to view that wetland. Mr. MacMillan stated that at the end of Garnet Park Road, the Land Trust has a pathway going from a parking area out to a platform area approximately 10-12’ high, located on a little upland area within the marsh that overlooks the marsh all the way down through Circle Beach and all the way over to the East River. That platform is approximately 8/10 of a mile to a mile from the Nathan’s Lane site.

Mr. MacMillan next addressed Ms. Welch’s concern that the Commission should hear what the actual remediation plan is, and introduced Janet Robertson, Senior Scientist of Woodard & Curran. Ms. Robertson outlined the remediation plan, as shown on EXHIBIT CU submitted. Ms. Robertson prefaced her presentation by stating that the proposed plan is a pretty common form of remediation, called “dig and haul” in the business because, basically, you dig it up and haul it off. The reason it is the most common form of remediation used in both large and small sites in the State is that it’s the simplest and it’s the most effective. Ms. Robertson identified 2 types of contamination found at the site. The highest level of contamination is located in the building area and underneath the building, floor drains - foundry sand. That material is going to be dug up, stockpiled, tested, and most of it taken off site. Testing will be done on-site during excavation. Stockpiling will occur on-site awaiting disposal and will be stored on plastic and covered with plastic. Ms. Robertson pointed out the areas where that’s most likely to occur, delineated in green on EXHIBIT CU.

The second area of contamination Ms. Robertson identified, as shown in yellow on EXHIBIT CU, is in the area of the stormwater pond and has lower levels of contamination. Contaminated soil in that area will be dug out; the area will be backfilled with clean fill; and excavated soil will be moved into the main body of the facility, used as fill and covered with asphalt. Ms. Robertson testified that the contaminated soil will be environmentally isolated and will not leach. Mr. MacDougald raised concerns previously raised by Dr. Orson as to would we be propagating more contaminants because the forced wetland itself is contaminated. Ms. Robertson clarified that it was slightly, but it doesn’t matter since it’s being dug up anyway. Mr. Millhiser questioned the level of contamination of the soil being moved to the main body of the facility. Ms. Robertson stated that the contamination is below the industrial standards and that the reason it’s being dug up is the potential for leaching. Mr. Macy asked how it compares with the soil it’s being placed over. Ms. Robertson responded that it differs by contaminant, but clarified that it’s cleaner than the soil it’s being placed over. In places where it will cover hotspots, Ms. Robertson stated that it will be under the asphalt. Mr. Bilcheck questioned whether there is any other type of substance or wrap that would be placed between the asphalt and the fill. Ms. Robertson stated that there is none required because there is 2”-4” of sealed asphalt and that as per the regulations, you have to keep that maintained.

Mr. Alsobrook asked if the soil outside of the delineated areas will remain as is. Ms. Robertson stated that it will get moved around, but mostly covered with asphalt. Mr. Alsobrook then stated that Ms. Welch testified that the public access area is required to meet residential standards and asked Ms. Robertson whether she agreed with that. Ms. Robertson responded that the residential standard assumes that someone will live there for their whole life, a child is going to grow up there their whole life and eat dirt for a period of years; and under those circumstances, you do need pretty clean dirt for that child to live there. Ms. Robertson distinguished that that’s not the situation here. Under the commercial/industrial standard, it is assumed that someone will be there approximately 8 hours per day and that while there is a certain amount of contact, it is not so much. Therefore, Ms. Robertson stated that you can have a little higher level of contamination on the site; but, you have to sign a deed restriction that says it will never go residential. Ms. Robertson stated that there will be such a restriction on the site that will prevent any kind of future residential use. Regarding the child contacting the dirt, Ms. Robertson stated that in the area of the walkway, there is going to be 6” of woodchips, several feet wide, which will be placed on top of clean fill. So there will be 6 or 8” of clean material over the top of the soil anyway. Mr. MacDougald was concerned that if a child steers off the path into any one of the surrounding, non-yellow areas, that they are wading in potentially contaminated soil. Ms. Robertson stated that not much contaminated soil exists in the areas of concern, noting that the driving issue with the site is leaching.

Mr. Macy asked why the yellow area is more contaminated than the rest of the general site. Ms. Robertson replied that it is less contaminated than the hot spots. Mr. Ott stated that the limits of the site development are within the limits of the disturbance and that fill has been pushed around, containing contaminants from historic uses. Mr. Ott stated that some excavation will be occurring outside of the limits of the pavement and noted that lower levels of contamination were detected by deep test pits. Other areas within the limits of disturbance are being capped. Mr. Alsobrook questioned whether the storage trailer has been looked at and whether it has been determined whether it was a source of contamination; if it has a bottom anymore, and has whatever was in there gone into the ground. Mr. MacMillan stated that it has not been opened, but that Woodard & Curran discussed the storage box with the owner and determined that whatever was in there was benign. Mr. Bilcheck asked Mr. MacMillan if any other remediation, similar in nature, has occurred in Town. Mr. MacMillan stated that Chuck & Eddie’s, which is an autobody salvage yard off of County Road, is 15 years into remediation. Also, Mr. MacMillan stated that the Circle Gas Station is in worse condition than the Nathan’s Lane site and has been contaminated for 25 years due to leaking gas tanks. Mr. MacMillan noted that no remediation is even going on there.

Regarding the traffic study, Mr. MacMillan stated that the accident rate was questioned at the last meeting and further stated that Barkan & Mess did look at it and submitted a report dated May 5, 2005 as EXHIBIT CV . Mr. Alsobrook noted that one of the accidents was a rear-end collision related to a school bus and that, in his opinion, it seems germane to this application. Regarding the question raised of how many off-peak buses run in the summer, Mr. MacMillan stated that for an average of 6-8 weeks, up to 6 buses and 6 vans run and leave the site at approximately 7:30-8:00 a.m.; half are done by noon; and the remaining buses and vans return to the site around 2:00 p.m. Mr. MacMillan stated that the exact number depends on variables such as how many kids are attending summer school and where the summer school is operated. Regarding sports events, Mr. MacMillan stated that Durham Bus Services looked at the sports bus run and picked two months; the month of February, which is the peak of the winter sports season; and October, which is prime football and soccer. The number of buses returning per month was tracked, by the clock, starting between 6:00 – 7:00 p.m. and ending at 11:00 p.m. – 12:00 a.m. In the month of February, between 11:00 – 12:00 a.m., there were seven buses that came back in that hour. Mr. MacMillan stated that that averaged 1/3 of a bus per day. Between 10:00 – 11:00, that number was 9; between 9:00 – 10:00 p.m. was 9; between 8:00 – 9:00 was 6; between 7:00 – 8:00 p.m. was 7; and 6:00 – 7:00 p.m. was 14. Mr. MacMillan noted that the majority of the sports buses were back in by 7:00 or 8:00 p.m.

In October, Mr. MacMillan noted that there is a larger number of buses used because of football, which requires a couple of buses for the team and the band; and if it’s an away game, the band requires 5 buses. In October, between 6:00 – 7:00 p.m., 34 buses returned, an average of 1.3 per day using the same number of days; 7:00 – 8:00 p.m. was 23, or 1 bus per day; 8:00 – 9:00 p.m. was 6 buses; 9:00 – 10:00 p.m. was 8; 10:00 – 11:00 p.m. was 20, or an average of 8/10 of a bus per day; and 11:00 – 12:00 a.m. was 0.

Mr. MacMillan next submitted EXHIBIT CW into the record, a letter to the Editor that appeared in the Source on March 17, 2005. Mr. MacMillan stated, for the record, that he does not know who the man is who wrote the letter; he has never met the man, never spoken to him; and that using his name, they looked up the residence that he lives at, measured the distance from his house to the present bus yard, which was in the range of 250’. Mr. MacDougald asked how that compares to the two nearest residence to the Nathan’s Lane site, which Mr. Mr. MacMillan stated is less. The Lamontange residence is around 270-300’ and the Scranton residence is 450’ away. Mr. MacDougald also questioned how the topography is between the man’s property and the current bus site. Mr. MacMillan stated that there is a small wetland area on his side of the property, then the railroad tracks and the bus yard. Mr. MacMillan finally submitted a Summary of Testimony in Support of Application of the Town of Madison Special Exception for School Bus Maintenance Facility as EXHIBIT CX.

The Commission took a brief recess from approximately 9:00 to 9:05 p.m.

Nicolle Burnham, P.E., of Milone & MacBroom, discussed several issues. First, Ms. Burnham discussed EXHIBIT CO, an e-mail correspondence to Mr. MacDougald dated April 29, 2005, regarding her observations at both sites. To discuss stormwater management issues, Ms. Burnham then introduced Jim MacBroom, founding Principal of Milone & MacBroom with over 30 years experience, specializing in water resources and water resource management, stormwater management planning; also on the faculty of Yale. Mr. MacBroom identified the 5 “C”’s of how stormwater drainage system work, 1) collect the water; 2) concentrate the water with curbing, or disperse it; 3) convey the water through swales or pipes; 4) control the flow; and 5) cleanse the water before it discharges, which may be achieved by installing catch basins with sumps or other methods. Mr. MacBroom expressed his opinion that the proposed system is quite good for this project and stated that the ratio between the size of the watershed area, 1.6 acres, and the size of the basin, 6,000 sq. ft., is very favorable. The rule of thumb from the Environmental Protection Agency, Mr. MacBroom stated, is that if you could have a basin equal to ½% of the size of the watershed, they would normally expect to have good performance; if you get up to 2 or 3% of the size of the watershed, you would expect to have very high performance. In this proposal, Mr. MacBroom stated that the ratio is about 15%, which should yield excellent results.

Mr. MacBroom discussed the concern previously raised about the impact of clay, whether or not clay would clog up the soil and infiltration unit, whether it would have adverse impact when it gets into the basin. One of the first things a sediment engineer does, Mr. MacBroom stated, is look at the type of sediment that the basin presents; what type of sediments are being produced by that particular watershed. Mr. MacBroom stated that in this case, there is a basin under existing condition that consists basically of silty sand. Mr. MacBroom submitted EXHIBIT CY into the record, soil samples obtained from the west end of the site, and demonstrated that the soil is non-cohesive. Mr. MacBroom stated that there is no clay under existing conditions and that under proposed conditions, runoff will be coming off the asphalt and will not produce clay. Therefore, Mr. MacBroom concluded that there is no source of clay to get into the drainage system and that the concerns that have been expressed about clay are, in his opinion, false.

Mr. MacBroom next addressed infiltration, noting that infiltration systems have two roles: 1) they have to be able to infiltrate through the perimeter of the system; and 2) have a longer field to look at how rapidly the water moves through the soil. When you have a permeable soil, this is sand with no silt and virtually no clay, water moves very easily through it and so it’s not going to create a big mound. Mr. MacBroom stated that by paving the site, the source of much groundwater is effectively being cut off and, therefore, you’re not going to see a whole lot of groundwater movement. Mr. MacBroom stated that the groundwater level will probably drop a little bit, but ultimately it’s controlled by the elevation of the tidal wetland on the downstream side. Mr. MacDougald asked if that means the Commission should conclude, going back to the remediation discussion, that if we cap this site, since it doesn’t have a lot of movement to begin with, that the cap should be particularly effective. Mr. MacBroom stated that yes, the cap is going to reduce groundwater infiltration and reduce groundwater levels. Mr. MacBroom stated that Plan A with the infiltrator is not going to add any more water to the ground than what exists now. It simply is a spatial relocation of the groundwater from being fully distributed over the course of the land to concentrating on the edge. So most of that groundwater, Mr. MacBroom stated, is going to bypass any contaminated soils that may be left in place. So in effect, Mr. MacBroom concluded that the long range impact of the site is going to be much cleaner than it is now.

Regarding retention, Mr. MacBroom addressed some concerns raised by Ms. Burnham pertaining to the efficiency of the created wetland in Alternate Plan C, and trying to renovate surface water and groundwater discharging into it. Mr. MacBroom stated that retention time is one of the factors considered. Mr. MacBroom stated that currently, there are 1.6 acres of watershed, equivalent to 70,000 sq. ft., and we get roughly 50” of rain a year, or an average of about 1” of rain per week. Mr. MacBroom stated that if you take the 1” per week and multiply it by how many square feet of groundcover you have, it ends up being about 6,000 cubic feet of water per week. Then you look at the size of the basin that it drains into, in this case approximately 9,500 cubic feet, which is 1 ½ times larger than the weekly flow of water coming into the basin. That’s what’s called the retention time. So, Mr. MacBroom stated that the average drop of water coming in is going to take a week and a half before it goes out the other end, which Mr. MacBroom stated is very good. With sediments coming in, most of the time sandy type of soils settle within a period of about 30 minutes. Silty type of soils generally settle within a period of about 48 hours of retention time, in this case, about 10 days on the average. Mr. MacBroom predicted that in the summertime, there probably won’t be any discharge from the basin, unless there is a horrendous tropical type of storm.

Mr. MacBroom provided some recommendations. First, Mr. MacBroom stated that if the open basin type of plan is approved, then a floating boom should be put around the area in which water first flows into the basin. Then, if you do get hydrocarbons and other floatable type of materials, it will be caught with the floating boom. In the event of a catastrophic type of accident (ie: punctured fuel tank), it will catch that type of floating material with unlimited capacity, for all practical purposes, because you have a floating boom within the basin. Mr. MacBroom identified that as one of the advantages of going with the open basin. Mr. MacBroom clarified for Mr. MacDougald that when he says open basin, he means constructed wetland. Mr. MacDougald asked how the floating boom would work in a constructed wetland where it is dry for part of the time. Mr. MacBroom stated that they use them all the time on construction sites, and you usually have a rope or a chain, and along the length of it you have articulated, floating pads that absorb oils and petroleum products. Mr. MacBroom stated that they may need to be replaced once a year. Mr. Bilcheck asked what will happen with the floating boom during the periods that the wetland is dried out. Mr. MacBroom stated that the floating boom would then just sit on the ground. For the created wetland, the second recommendation Mr. MacBroom made was to create canopy plantings to provide long term shade and to maintain good temperature of the wetland, particularly in this case where there is a large parking lot that can raise the temperature of the stormwater runoff. By doing so, Mr. MacBroom stated that you don’t have as great a differential between the water coming out of the basin and the water in the wetland, the receiving waters. Sometimes water temperatures can reach 80 degrees, at which time you begin having detrimental conditions for amphibians and reptiles. Third, to help with the efficiency, Mr. MacBroom recommended disconnecting the runoff coming from the rooftops of the buildings so that it doesn’t go through the Vortechnics units, because basically it’s going to dilute the water from the parking lot that may or may not contain parking lot contaminants. Mr. MacBroom stated that the Vortechnics unit will function more efficiently without the clean rooftop runoff running through it. That could be piped directly to the basin separate from the other stormdrain system. Finally, Mr. MacBroom recommended sweeping the parking lot on an annual basis, particularly in the spring time after buses have been tracking in road sand.

Mr. MacDougald asked if any of Mr. MacBroom’s recommendations are problematic for the Applicant. Mr. MacMillan stated no, but that he would need to look further into the canopy around the wetlands to see what’s involved. Mr. MacDougald also asked if Mr. MacBroom has a preference between the two storm drain systems being presented. Mr. MacBroom stated that they both work, however he prefers the constructed wetland partly because it’s easy to maintain and partly because he likes wetlands. Mr. Traugh stated that the Commission did receive testimony regarding the constructed wetland from Dr. Orson that raised a concern about daylighting into the groundwater and a concern that that would act like a magnet to pull the contaminants through the soils quicker than if they weren’t daylighting to the constructed wetland. Mr. Traugh stated that option “D” was presented by Dr. Orson, which reshaped the basin to be shallower so that it did not connect directly to the water. Mr. Traugh requested Mr. MacBroom’s input regarding Dr. Orson’s concern and option “D”. Mr. MacBroom stated that the basin is going to connect to the water anyway because the stormwater going into it is going to locally raise the groundwater underneath the basin. In terms of trying to draw water as a magnet, from an engineering point of view Mr. MacBroom stated that doesn’t make any sense at all, but what does happen is you shorten the flow path by a few feet by the width of the basin. Mr. MacBroom stated that all that groundwater is going to make it to the wetland anyway.

Ms. Burnham introduced Bennett Brooks, P.E., of Brooks Acoustics to address noise concerns. Mr. Brooks summarized that the new study is good and he concurs with its conclusions. Mr. Brooks explained that he did not feel satisfied with the information the Commission had received up until the last meeting. Mr. Brooks made the following recommendations: 1) Institute a back-up adjustment or management program. Mr. MacMillan expressed some concern that the back-up beeper is a safety device that will now depend on human intervention. 2) Institute a management solution to perform back-up beeper testing as far from the residential properties as possible during the A.M. pretrip; and maybe use another building or another bus to shield sound. Mr. Brooks agreed with the calculations mentioned in the report, but made one slight adjustment regarding the 7 buses idling. Mr. Brooks stated that at the site they did a quick mental calculation and came up with 49, but has since calculated with the calculator and came up with about 49.7, rounded up to 50. However, Mr. Brooks stated that the conclusions will remain the same in terms of the number of buses idling at time. Mr. MacDougald asked if that should be what the Commission should reasonably assume is the noise impact for this application. Mr. Brooks stated his opinion that neither the idling buses nor the accelerating buses is the problem in light of the distances to the nearest residences. The idling and accelerating of buses will be consistent with or lower than the background sound levels. Regarding background noise, Mr. Brooks further stated that bird chirping peaks at about 5:00-6:00 a.m., at which time it is almost continuous, and was reflected on the chart in EXHIBIT CS hitting over 50DBA and sometimes 60DBA. At the distances to the houses that might have an open window, Mr. Brooks stated that the back-up beepers will probably be almost indistinguishable from the birds that are out at that period of time. Mr. Brooks concluded that the noise levels at the nearest property line are in compliance with the regulations. Since the regulations on noise standards exempt mobile things, Mr. Alsobrook questioned whether, for consideration of this application, the site itself should be considered for use of buses on-site. Mr. Brooks indicated that that’s probably more a legal issue than a technical issue, but that there has been some guidance on that in the past that goes in favor of Mr. Alsobrook’s statement; putting the activity on the site and not regulating the vehicles themselves. Mr. Brooks used a grocery store with refrigerator trucks as an example, in which a refrigerator truck is a motor vehicle until it backs up to the loading dock and shuts its engine, at which time it becomes a part of the facility.

Mr. MacDougald next invited John Bashaw, Attorney for the Intervenor, who could not be present at the last hearing, to speak. Mr. Bashaw stated for the record that he is not a sound expert, not an LEP, and not a traffic engineer; however, at this hearing new studies and a new site plan for remediation have been received and therefore, Mr. Bashaw maintained that he is substantially handicapped. Therefore, Mr. Bashaw requested that the hearing remain open to allow him opportunity to have his experts review the reports. First, Mr. Bashaw suggested that during deliberation, the Commission turn on the back-up alarm previously submitted as an exhibit and stated that he would be surprised if the Commission found it comparable to the sound of birds. As to the sound/noise regulations with regard to Mr. Alsobrook’s question, Mr. Bashaw indicated that they are a guidance. Under Section 4 in Madison’s Zoning Regulations, the Commission’s mandate is much broader, which is to look and consider public convenience, which includes noise. Mr. Bashaw maintained that that does not necessarily tie to whether something does or does not exceed a noise standard as established by the State. Mr. Bashaw pointed out that the same company that did the previous noise study is the same company that did the noise study presented at this hearing. Mr. Bashaw stated that he was not certain whether the particular expert that presented the traffic study at this hearing was aware of the traffic opinion that was previously provided, which said that at that time, approximately 6:00 a.m., there is not rush hour traffic. However, the person who testified from TRC stated background noise actually is going to be higher at that time because it is rush hour. Mr. Bashaw questioned whether that time is or isn’t rush hour. Mr. Bashaw also noted that the TRC expert also testified about the increase in decibel levels from the buses, and Mr. Bashaw pointed out that testing was done on 3 buses, while there are 42 buses and 15 vans on this property, which is a big difference. Mr. Bashaw acknowledged that testimony indicated that the noise level is going to go down as you increase the number of buses. However, if you look at the old TRC study and you just accept the raw data that was collected (ie: time frame of 6:40 a.m. found on page 2 of the previous report), decibel levels measured at the property line for the current bus facility was 72.8 and background was 56.6, higher than the background at the proposed location measured at 45-50 approximately. 220’ away at that same time period, the decibel level was 77.4, which is a 5 decibel increase. So, Mr. Bashaw stated that looking at the data, it may be summarized that noise does not follow a straight path; it may bounce and it may move around depending upon prevailing winds. Mr. Bashaw questioned whether, when Ms. Burnham was conducting her anecdotal review, she was taking into account what the prevailing wind patterns were at the time she was doing her study. Mr. Bashaw pointed out that in the previous noise study, the background levels and the measured levels in decibels was up to 20 decibels different. Mr. Bashaw stated that trains have been measured at around 90DBA, and while people have testified as to how loud the trains are when they go by, the previous TRC sound study notes that buses idling 10’ away were recorded at 88DBA. Mr. MacDougald distinguished that the previous report measured the current site and the new report measured the proposed site. Mr. Bashaw again pointed out that the proposed site measured 3 buses. Ultimately, Mr. Bashaw alleged that there are some real inconsistencies between the 2 sound studies presented.

Mr. Bashaw raised a question about the fence, depicting on the plan where the fence is proposed. Mr. Bashaw questioned whether there will be gates and fencing at the end of the path. Mr. Ott responded that the plan for the path is just conceptual and that the last 10 feet of the fence would have to move to accommodate 2 parking spaces and signage for the path. Mr. Bashaw expressed concern regarding security and pointed out that the current bus station, as well as bus stations in Guilford and Clinton are surrounded by fence. Mr. Bashaw stated that that fence prevents somebody from coming onto the site, jumping into a bus and stealing the bus, but it doesn’t prevent people, foot traffic, from accessing the site during off hours where the buses are located. Mr. Bashaw pointed out circumstances in town, including Portland, for example, where there was a great deal of vandalism done to buses. With this site being so close to a coastal area management area, Mr. Bashaw expressed that he would think the Town would want to err on the side of great caution to restrict that entire area where the parking lot is located to keep people from coming on and messing with the buses.

With respect to the path itself and the whole plan, Mr. Bashaw stated his opinion that it would be helpful for the Commission to have something from Margaret Welch, some kind of an approval of that particular plan. Regarding a question as to whether the area of the path would be remediated to residential standards, Mr. Bashaw was not clear that it was really answered. Mr. Bashaw gathered that the soil is not going to be remediated to residential standards, rather 6” of woodchips, or land use restrictions, or something else is going to be used as an alternative. Mr. Bashaw indicated his belief that Ms. Welch actually wanted the area remediated to a residential standard. Mr. Bashaw pointed out that this site is going to have to comply with Connecticut’s Remediation Standard Regulations (RSRs) under the Connecticut Transfer Act and that he is not aware of any provision in the RSRs that says that as an alternative to the process of remediating to residential, that 6” of woodchips may be placed on the site. Mr. Bashaw further pointed out, responding to a previous question about other vantage points, that Ms. Welch stated that’s irrelevant to the CAM review; that you look at this site itself and you don’t look at what other water-dependent uses are in the area.

Mr. Bashaw discussed the remediation plan, pointing out EXHIBIT CU, and alleging that it is not a remediation plan that anybody at DEP would accept for an establishment under the Transfer Act. Mr. MacDougald indicated that the Commission had previously requested a conceptual summary of the remediation plan. Mr. Bashaw maintained that there are a lot of data gaps on the site and pointed out an area that was described as having a lot of foundry sands. Mr. Bashaw indicated that no sampling has been taken in other areas on the site where foundry sands could easily extend to. Mr. Bashaw questioned, if the contaminated area becomes much larger, and this is soil that’s being trucked off-site, what will the expense be and would it be the same plan of trucking the heavily metal-contaminated soil off-site. Mr. Bashaw questioned how close the soil being placed underneath the cap is to the leach field. Mr. Bashaw also questioned a statement by Ms. Robertson that sampling that’s been done at this industrial site is more work than would be typically done. Mr. Bashaw acknowledged that he may have misheard Ms. Robertson’s statement. Mr. Bashaw next pointed out that Ms. Robertson indicated there is no lead on the property, and Mr. Bashaw sought to correct the record, pointing out a table that’s attached to the raw data received that shows that there were 2 hits of lead that exceed the industrial/commercial direct exposure standard. Mr. Bashaw expressed concern regarding the asphalt cap, recollecting earlier testimony that cracks in the pavement would not allow for significant infiltration, and stated that if there are potholes, there will actually be pooling of water pulling it down into areas of purposely brought contaminated soil. Mr. Bashaw alleged that they need to have a true engineered cap, approved by the DEP, and a true comprehensive maintenance and management plan for that asphalt to make sure that all cracks, everything is sealed. Mr. MacMillan clarified that that has to happen anyway, as per DEP. Mr. Leonard pointed out that the Commission does not have to require that and Mr. Bashaw responded that the Commission may impose it as a condition if it wishes. Mr. Leonard stated that’s irrelevant if the DEP requires it anyway.

Regarding the traffic report, Mr. Bashaw pointed out Mr. MacMillan’s earlier testimony that the traffic incidents that occurred in the last year were things like following too close, which the traffic engineer had stated were not relevant to his consideration. Mr. Bashaw challenged that he doesn’t know what could be more relevant than having a large, lumbering, slow bus pulling onto Route 1 and somebody is following somebody else too close. Mr. Bashaw asked Mr. MacMillan why following too close would not be a concern. Mr. MacMillan responded that what he thinks Mr. Mess was referring to was that the entire intersection at Nathan’s Lane is being reconfigured; what are now 3 driveways are going to be 1. Mr. Bashaw stated his uncertainty as to why following too closely in that area is not necessarily the typical accident down there. Mr. MacMillan maintained that this application is not creating a situation that is going to aggravate that in any way at all. Mr. MacMillan submitted to the Commission that by the time the intersection is reconfigured, that area will be far safer.

Mr. Bashaw questioned Mr. MacBroom’s qualifications; whether he designs groundwater remediation systems; whether he is a hydrologist; whether he is a LEP. Mr. MacBroom stated that he does design groundwater remediation systems; he is a hydrologist; and he is not an LEP. Mr. Bashaw questioned how many groundwater systems Mr. MacBroom has designed. Mr. MacBroom stated that he has designed dozens of groundwater remediation systems. At Mr. MacDougald’s request, Mr. MacBroom offered a “10 second” curriculum outline. Mr. MacBroom stated that he graduated from the University of Connecticut with a bachelor’s degree and honors in civil engineering; he has a masters degree in civil engineering from the University of Connecticut 1979; he has had courses at Penn State, University of Wisconsin and many continuing education courses; he teaches at Yale University and has taught at University of Connecticut; he has developed courses in hydrology, hydraulics, surface water flow; he has worked 32 years as a consulting engineer; during that time he has worked on projects dealing with surface water, groundwater, landfill closures, hazardous waste sites – particularly in the first half of his career, at which time you did not need to be an LEP, which phrase did not exist at that time; he is a professional engineer in Connecticut and about ½ dozen other states.

Regarding Mr. MacBroom’s recommendation to sweep for bus residue on an annual basis, Mr. Bashaw stated that he thought the buses were going to be washed by a fancy, self-contained system and alleged that residue from the buses may not be such a concern. Lastly, Mr. Bashaw noted that he has been an Intervenor from the beginning of this hearing and that he is not used to being an Intervenor where documents are submitted on the day of the hearing, at the hearing. Mr. Bashaw stated that he is not used to such circumstances where apparently there was work done with the TRC study, working with the Town’s engineers, and nobody contacted the Intervenor to request their participation. Mr. Bashaw finally submitted EXHIBIT CZ that summarizes his various points, a letter to the Commission dated May 5, 2005.

At approximately 10:20 p.m., Mr. MacDougald invited comments and questions from the public. The following residents spoke for or against the application:

Brian Fellows of 24 Garnet Park Road, EXHIBIT DA
Claudine Moray of 55B Garnet Park Road expressed concern regarding the decibel measurements of the back-up beepers. Ms. Moray pointed to her property in relation to the new car wash being developed and the strip mall across the street on the aerial photograph. Ms. Moray expressed that as far as buildings serving as sound barriers, that effect was not achieved every morning when the car wash began construction and her family was awakened by the sound of back-up beepers.
Betty Krieger of 115 Boston Post Road asked the Applicant whether application has been made to the D.O.T. and stated that when she called herself, she spoke with a gentlemen whose name remained anonymous, and was informed that no application had been submitted. Ms. Krieger alleged that the anonymous gentleman indicated that this is a “nightmare for them”. Ms. Krieger further stated that D.O.T. would prefer that this does not go through; but the reality of it is that you guys sitting on this panel are the ones that decide that, and then what the State does from the D.O.T. is they tell the Town how they have to make it happen. Ms. Krieger alleged that if the Commission does not stop this on the traffic issue and everything else, nobody else can stop it. Mr. MacDougald clarified that the D.O.T. can squash things, and they do all the time, for traffic considerations. Mr. MacMillan stated that they met with D.O.T. 3 days ago and have been having ongoing discussion with them. Mr. MacMillan stated that at a meeting with D.O.T., with 15 to 20 D.O.T. representatives present, a high level D.O.T. official asked whether there are any fatal flaws with the proposed plan and every D.O.T. official at the table said no.
Barbara Davis of 97 Stone Road, EXHIBIT DB.
Carol Altieri of 54 Edinburgh Lane, EXHIBIT DC.
Emily J. Eisenlohr of 168 Neck Road, EXHIBIT DD.

The Commission took a brief recess from approximately 10:55 p.m. to 11:05 p.m.

The following residents spoke for or against the application:

Bill Walling of 15 Tamarack Drive asked about the sound testing, stating that his understanding is that ground at the current site is rather soft, there’s a lot of grass, and very few buildings which would serve to absorb sound. Mr. Walling asked the Commission to consider what will be at the site, and not what it is now, indicating that if you put a bus between two buildings, you may get a lot of echoing. Mr. Walling also asked whether any survey has been done to determine if pollution is presently entering the salt marshes; and if so, in what concentrations. Mr. Walling stated that testimony was received that runoff going into the sound would actually be cleaner, but yet until there is a base, knowing what the actual pollution is in that area, Mr. Walling alleged that no conclusion can be drawn. Mr. MacMillan responded that there has been no testing done at or in the salt marsh; however, the freshwater that enters the salt marsh is groundwater, and testing has been done on groundwater and will continue to be done through the remediation process. Regarding Mr. Walling’s question about the sound testing being conducted on a soft ground as opposed to a paved site, Mr. Agresti of TRC stated that the ground surface would not affect the sound level because the ground surface affects sound level once the sound travels over that surface. Mr. Agresti indicated on a map that the sound was tested in one area that was not paved of the buses at the edge of the pavement and the sound propagating over the area between is not being paved, so the ground surface does not affect the sound. More importantly, Mr. Agresti stated that when he talked about the level being 10 and 14 decibels lower, that was assuming a hard paved surface, and so in reality, that 10 and 14 would be even a greater number because the ground actually absorbs some of the sound.

Mr. MacDougald noted testimony by Mr. Fellows regarding hearing sound over Garnet Park Road and by Ms. Moray regarding sound from the car wash; and looked at the location with the low-lying building in the way. Mr. MacDougald questioned why that shouldn’t be really troubling since that testimony seems to go exactly against what Mr. Agresti has discussed. Mr. Agresti stated that when he spoke of the study, there are two different components of sound – the buses pulling away and back-up beepers. It was clearly demonstrated that the sound from diesel engine and the exhaust from the buses pulling away is clearly going to blend into the background. The back-up beepers are different, and Mr. Agresti pointed out that those are going to be higher than the buses and because they have a different pitch, it will stand out in the environment more. Mr. Agresti also noted that adjustment of the back-up beepers is a management issue and the sound may vary from site to site.

Mr. Walling, regarding his question about pollution going into the sound, stated his understanding based on other meetings he has attended is that over the course of time, the DEP is going to be conducting surveys periodically as to whether there is more, or any, pollution entering into that area from the constructed site. Mr. Walling stated that to him, it does not seem logical if there has been no testing done so far to determine a base of pollution in the salt water marshes that there can be any semblance of determination of whether there is going to be a valid response by the DEP. Further, Mr. Walling questioned if it were determined that a great deal of more pollution is entering the sound, what level of remediation would be required then; would the Town have to tear up the entire area of the paving? How long of a period of time is the DEP going to do this? Mr. MacMillan stated that he has answered the question; the water going into the marsh is the groundwater, which has been tested. Water contained levels of certain substances, above that established by the State of Connecticut, that can be harmful to aquatic life. Mr. Walling questioned whether Mr. MacMillan anticipated any changes from construction. Mr. MacMillan stated that the remediation plan, as proposed by Woodard & Curran, will remove or lower those concentrations entering into the salt marsh.

Magda Grayson of 1065 Boston Post Road spoke in favor of the application. In response to all the testimony received regarding the back-up beepers, Ms. Grayson stated that she has been working with the Department of Motor Vehicles to find out the legality of being able to wire the beepers so they may be turned on and off, using them when you’re out on the road and being able to switch it off when coming into the bus site so that there is no noise backing up. Ms. Grayson stated that an answer is pending. Ms. Grayson further stated that back-up beepers do not have to be tested in the morning at the site. Rather, Ms. Grayson stated that testing may be done at the first school where they drop off.
Bob Ackerman of 98 Boston Post Road, EXHIBIT DE. Mr. Ackerman questioned how access to the block heaters will be accomplished for the buses that are going to be backed in and doubled parked without running 50’ & 100’ extension cords out to the front of the buses. Mr. MacMillan responded that that could be done, or the block heaters could be wired to go the back end of the bus so that on the double parked buses you only have around 40’ to the exhaust. Mr. MacMillan noted that’s an operational issue for the bus company. Mr. Ackerman pointed out that it would be better to pull the buses nose in, which Mr. MacMillan absolutely agreed with. However, Mr. MacMillan stated that if the buses were parked that way, the buses would be backing out every morning with the back-up beepers running a lot longer, which is why they chose this alignment.

Second, Mr. Ackerman stated that the parking lot is being capped, toxic soil is being put underneath it, and the septic system is being installed underneath it, which Mr. Ackerman stated is putting water underneath it and expressed his opinion that it doesn’t make a lot of sense. Mr. MacMillan stated that the area where the septic system is going is being excavated and tested and replaced with soil that is not contaminated.

Regarding the traffic study, Mr. Ackerman stated that everything has been addressed for Route 1 and that he understood that most of the buses would go down Route 1 to Route 79; go up Route 79 and disperse from there. Mr. Ackerman stated he could not imagine buses going, especially from the High School, Polson & Jeffrey, that way around, through about 5 traffic lights, and adding about 3 or 4 miles to the trip. Mr. Ackerman stated that it would seem they would be going down Green Hill Road and Mungertown Road, and questioned whether there are going to be restrictions on that. Mr. Ackerman noted that there is now a car wash at the bottom end of Mungertown, as well as the railroad bridge. Mr. Ackerman was concerned that you can’t drive a car through there along with a bus. Mr. MacMillan stated that buses and passenger cars pass under that bridge every single day of the week.

Regarding diesel fumes, Mr. Ackerman stated that he did some research and found that as high as a 10,000/1 dilution rate is recommended to get diesel fumes down to an acceptable odor level. Mr. Ackerman further stated that he did some calculations, based upon his assumption that on a cold winter morning, they’re going to run all the buses. Mr. Ackerman stated that if all the buses are running, it puts about 5,300 cubic feet per minute of exhaust out, which puts you up in the 53 million range for fresh air that’s needed to dilute that. Mr. Ackerman noted that that’s based on one minute, and that if you have 3 minutes you’re going to have a bigger cloud. Mr. Ackerman stated that the only real assumption that can be made is that you have totally calm air and they disperse in all directions equally, you end up with close to a 375’ radius off the buses, which is well into the residential properties. Mr. Ackerman stated that if you add a slight breeze to that, it’s going to push it off-center in any one direction, worse than that. Mr. Ackerman stated that he’d like to see the diesel issue addressed a little better than it has been, in spite of the fact that experts have testified that you can’t figure it out because of various factors. Ms. Poutot asked Ms. Grayson whether all the buses are idling at the same time, for a long period of time, on a cold winter day. Ms. Poutot stated that she thought there was testimony that diesel engines don’t warm up by idling, rather they only warm up once they get moving. Ms. Grayson stated the buses do have to be started every morning, turned over, but that they are not allowed to idle all the buses at the same time and that idling the buses all at one time would not accomplish anything since the buses do not warm up until they’re moving.
Christopher Scranton of 100 Boston Post Road, Intervenor, began his presentation by correcting a statement he made at the last meeting that the buses are 14’ high, noting that they are actually 10’ high; and made the point that they will be visible even from the Boston Post Road, even if they’re 10’, because you’ll see them right down through the field where the horse grazes. Mr. Scranton noted Mr. MacMillan’s statement that the football team plays 9 football games per year and clarified that Madison won the State Championship this year and there were 12 football games. Mr. Scranton stated that the yellow shaded area on the map submitted at the last meeting was not intended to delineate residential properties within 500’, rather residential properties in general to allow a comparison regarding the residential communities around the proposed bus site. Mr. Scranton entered EXHIBIT DF, which included the following:
§ Recurrence Interval/Rainfall Intensity A Sensible Alternative to the “First Flush” as a Design Parameter
§ Diagram of Green Hill Road & Ridge Road intersection w/ road widths
§ Photograph of school bus located at 258 Ridge Road, Assessor’s Map 78, Lot 3
§ Board with photographs of Clinton school bus facility
§ Board with photographs of Guilford school bus facility
Mr. Scranton alleged that other towns would have their school buses serviced in Madison because it doesn’t make sense for every town to have a facility that services buses. Mr. Scranton noted that he observed an employee at the Guilford school bus site preparing to take a few buses off-site to Hamden for repair. Mr. Alsobrook questioned whether Laidlaw has a service facility in Hamden, which Mr. Scranton stated the service contract is for Hamden, and they have a facility where they change the oil and fix the brakes, and that kind of stuff. Mr. Scranton further stated that Clinton has its buses serviced in Old Saybrook. Mr. Scranton stated that neither the Guilford bus facility, nor the Clinton bus facility is located near residential.

Mr. Scranton stated that they hear trains for approximately 12 minutes per day, as opposed to the 18 hours of engines, buses, back-up beepers going from 5:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. Mr. Scranton alleged that diesel fumes are an issue because the buses will be stacked, with exhaust pipes directed toward the front doors of the buses in the back. Mr. MacDougald asked Mr. MacMillan if that’s how the buses are parked now. Mr. MacMillan was not sure, and clarified that configuration of the parking is a bus company issue, not a Planning and Zoning issue. If the bus company can function that way, and they’ve said they can, Mr. MacMillan submitted that it’s the decision of the bus company.
Brenda Wiley of 604 Opening Hill Road, EXHIBIT DG.

Mr. MacDougald asked Mr. Agresti of TRC Environmental Corporation to compare and contrast the previous sound study versus the current sound study, noting that there were issues associated with a variation of 20DBA either way. Mr. Agresti responded that he was not involved in the original study that was conducted; that he is not familiar with what sources contributed to the sound levels that were measured there at that time. Mr. Agresti stated that he does not know how they calculated the background sound. Mr. Agresti stated that the study was not conducted by his office, although it was conducted by TRC, which has many offices. Mr. Agresti stated that if the previous study had something good to build on, they would have built on it. However, Mr. Agresti noted that it was more appropriate to conduct a site specific study as opposed to a study at a different site, extrapolating information to a new site. Mr. Agresti noted that Mr. Brooks agreed, and that the new study is a lot more accurate.

Mr. MacDougald invited further questions for the Applicant.

Andrea Scranton of 100 Boston Post Road questioned whether the Town of Madison obtained permission from the railroad company to cross over their property in order to access this project. Mr. MacMillan stated that formal permission has not been obtained to date, but that he anticipates it to come.

Mr. MacDougald invited the Applicant to make closing statements.

Mr. Branse, Attorney for the Applicant, addressed one legal issue that was raised, noting that Attorney Bashaw has challenged the due process of the public hearing by saying that he has not had adequate time to review the documents submitted and that he did not have the opportunity to bring experts to respond to points made. Mr. Branse clarified that 1) every piece of information received at this portion of the hearing was in response to questions and requests from members of the public, including the Intervenor; and 2) the Applicant does have the last word because it is their burden of proof. Mr. Branse lastly pointed out that every one heard the presentations, had the opportunity to raise questions about them or to comment on them. Mr. Branse maintained that the Intervenors, or anyone else, knew what the issues were, as they were the issues that they have identified, and therefore, they could have brought their own experts if they wished to. Mr. Branse concluded that the Applicant’s written summary really addresses everything that they have presented tonight and turned the floor over to Mr. MacMillan.

Mr. MacMillan stated that after hearing hours of testimony from Town staff, consultants hired by the Town staff, the consultants hired by the Commission, he feels that all of the issues that need to be addressed have been adequately addressed. Ms. Poutot asked whether Mr. MacMillan is familiar with the report cited by Mr. Scranton regarding the Vortechnics unit, called The First Flush. Mr. MacMillan stated that the proposed unit is so over-designed that in his opinion, that would not be an issue. Mr. MacMillan stated that it could rain at a light rate for days, and that would not over-tax the Vortechnics unit; and then when it started to rain, Mr. MacMillan stated that they can easily handle the first flush, noting that they are twice the maximum flow for an extreme 1” rainfall, and therefore, his opinion is that that’s not relevant.

Mr. MacDougald asked for any further questions for the Applicant. Seeing none, Mr. MacDougald asked if the Commission wished to close the public hearing or have a discussion regarding the advisability of closing. Mr. Alsobrook asked whether there is any requirement for the Intervenor to be able to rebut the response. Mr. MacDougald stated that was not the issue, but that the Applicant always goes last. Ms. Poutot clarified that what Mr. Alsobrook is raising is the issue that the Intervenor said he did not have a chance to review the documents that were submitted at this hearing, but the documents submitted at this hearing were in response to their concerns. Mr. MacDougald made a second point that they were there on extension, which means that the Commission cannot continue on their own. Therefore, upon a motion by Ms. Ring, seconded by Mr. Bilcheck, it was unanimously voted to close the public hearing at approximately 12:00 a.m.

Mr. MacDougald stated that a meeting will take place at another time where the Commission will deliberate, seeking the advice of staff, and that the Commission will have 65 days to take action.

Respectfully submitted,
Terry Macy
Secretary
May 12, 2005