In response to recent criticism leveled at the Water & Sewer Authority (WSA) over its proposed revisions to the town’s Water Pollution Control Plan, the town’s public works director is explaining why the WSA’s reasoning is sound and its proposed pollution control plan makes sense.

At a November 8 WSA session, WSA members discussed Director Fred Hurley’s October 29 written response to the criticisms of the WSA that were listed in an October 11 letter from attorney Timothy Hollister. The lawyer represents development firm 79 Church Hill Road LLC, which has a lawsuit pending against the WSA concerning the controversial proposed Hunters Ridge rental apartment complex.

In August, 79 Church Hill Road LLC, which proposes the large complex at that address, near Exit 10 of Interstate 84, filed a lawsuit against the WSA, through which the firm seeks court approval to either substantially or to greatly expand the land area at which the firm could construct the apartment complex with the provision of municipal sanitary sewer service.

Through that lawsuit, the Trumbull-based developer also is seeking to have the court nullify certain conditions that the WSA has placed on the firm obtaining municipal sewage treatment capacity for the proposed dwellings.

The project would include an affordable housing component, in which income-eligible tenants would be charged lower rents than the tenants occupying market-rate units. The town, like some other municipalities, is under a state mandate to increase its stock of affordable housing.

In his objection letter, Mr Hollister challenged the basis for town’s having listed a large section of the area where the developer wants to build the multifamily project as a “sewer avoidance area,” where sewer service is not allowed.

In response, Mr Hurley writes “The applicant’s attorney clearly ignores the science and engineering that went into the final delineation of the WSA’s ‘sewer service area,’ which was mandated by environmental orders of the State of Connecticut.

“There was no compelling environmental reason nor legal requirement” to extend the boundaries of the sewer service area far north of the frontage at 79 Church Hill Road, as is being sought by the developer, according to Mr Hurley.

Groundwater Pollution Prevention

Also, Mr Hurley maintains that the WSA is a public utility with obligations to landowners’ rights, which is why it has approved the developer’s request for 20,868 gallons of daily wastewater disposal capacity for the section of the property that lies within the sewer service area, Mr Hurley writes.

An initial version of the Hunters Ridge project proposed 224 dwellings, of which 45 units would be designated as “affordable” under the terms of the Planning & Zoning Commission’s (P&Z) Incentive Housing-10 (IH-10) zoning regulations. The most recent of several subsequent versions of the project proposed by the developer would hold 141 dwellings, of which 43 units would be designated as “affordable” under the terms of the state’s Affordable Housing Appeals Act.

Also, Mr Hurley challenges Mr Hollister’s contention that the state should transfer some of its daily sewage treatment capacity at the sewage plant to the town so that such capacity could be used for projects such as Hunters Ridge.

If the state ever were to transfer some of its sewage treatment capacity to the town, that capacity would be used to resolve environmental problems, rather than for projects like Hunters Ridge, according to Mr Hurley.

“We simply do not see where any part of this [developer’s] complaint has any validity or merit... The applicant’s goal is focused on making a profit. There is nothing wrong with that. However, the goal of the WSA is the prevention and/or mitigation of groundwater pollution,” Mr Hurley concludes.

Through the pending lawsuit, the developer is seeking to nullify the WSA having strictly limited the size of the area where development could occur and also to nullify the WSA’s requirement that the developer gain approvals for the project from the P&Z and the from Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) before the WSA would provide municipal sanitary sewer service for the project.

The WSA’s proposed revisions to the Water Pollution Control Plan would make it more concise than the plan it would replace. If the revised plan is approved by the WSA, there would be less need for the WSA to repeatedly update the document, according to Mr Hurley.

The current plan was approved by the WSA in January 2015. The original plan was approved in 1995, with revisions made in 1999 and 2009.

WSA members, who held a public hearing on the proposed pollution control plan revisions on October 11, are expected to act on the document on December 13.

According to the proposed revised plan, the document, through its related mapping, delineates the boundaries of areas to be served by town sewers as well as the areas where sewers are to be avoided. The plan also describes the policies and programs the town employs to control both surface water and groundwater pollution.

The boundaries of the central sewer system became a controversial issue earlier this year when 79 Church Hill Road LLC sought WSA approval to construct the high-density rental apartment complex at that address.

The central sanitary sewer system, which started operations in 1997, was constructed for environmental reasons. The system was built by the town to provide an environmentally sound way to dispose of wastewater. Many failing septic systems had been causing soil and groundwater pollution problems, resulting in a state order to the town to resolve the problem.

The separate Hawleyville sanitary sewer system, which started operation in 2001 and was expanded in 2016, was constructed by the town to stimulate economic development.