Environmental Impact Commission

Posted in City of Danbury Town Clerk’s office on September 26, 2024 at 11:40 a.m. CITY OF DANBURY 155 DEER HILL AVENUE DANBURY, CONNECTICUT 06810 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT COMMISSION (203) 797-4525 www.danbury-ct.gov (203) 797-4586 (FAX) REGULAR MEETING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT COMMISSION MINUTES CITY HALL – 155 DEER HILL AVENUE City Council Chambers Wednesday, September 11, 2024 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Chairman Matthew Rose called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Present by roll call: John Schwartz, Geoff Herald, Elizabeth Falk, Mark Massoud, Gary Dufel, and Michael Flanagan. Staff present was Melissa Llera, Secretary, and Larry Liebman, Environmental Compliance Inspector. Chairman Matthew Rose seated alternate Gary Dufel for Cristina Britton. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Geoff Herald. A moment of silence was also performed for the victims of the September 11th attacks. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES: August 28, 2024 Motion to accept the minutes of August 28, 2024 as presented was made Geoff Herald; seconded by Elizabeth Falk. No remarks. All in favor with Ayes of those eligible to vote: John Schwartz, Elizabeth Falk, Geoff Herald, Mark Massoud, Gary Dufel and Matthew Rose. Next regular meeting is scheduled for September 25, 2024. NEW BUSINESS: None OLD BUSINESS: #1220 55 Kenosia Ave, D is for Dog LLC, Artel Engineering, Agent, (E17079), IL-40 Zone, Construction of dog boarding and grooming facility EIC Minutes – September 11, 2024 Page 2 Dainius Virbickus present to represent the application for a doggie daycare. He provides members with copies of supplemental materials based on previous requests including information on the rain gardens, waste management procedures, and products used for cleaning of outdoor play areas. Modifications are displayed on the board with a colored rendering of plan provided. The green rectangle on the right behind the building is the proposed turf area. The rain gardens are shown in olive green: one further back from the play areas is the largest and two smaller ones by the trash enclosure. He acknowledges receipt of the staff report. He points out that item#1 under “other factors for determining significant activity” is answered “yes”, but this project is not within a Class 1 or 2 public water supply watershed area. He feels the conditions presented are reasonable and they would be happy to comply. Mr. Herald asks staff if the error notated by Mr. Virckus is a minimus change. Mr. Liebman confirms the answer should be “no,” and clarifies the project is in a floodplain and not a water supply watershed. Mr. Massoud expresses concerns about the transmission of the dog urine through the canine grass system and soils and potentially into the brook. He understands the system is meant to be highly drainable, so he is concerned on how quickly it will drain and the breakdown of the urine. He is unsure if there are special considerations for stormwater management or if this would be viewed as a high pollutant generator. Mr. Virbickas states that with dog urine you are looking to treat the nitrogen. The turf is highly permeable with 3/8” stone under the outdoor carpet. The system is rapid to avoid ponding on the surface. It will be laid over the existing gravel parking area, which was found to contain sand, silt, stone, and fill material during the perc tests. The gravel parking area is slower than the turf and will drain as it currently is when serving as a parking area. The urine would percolate into the soil. The closest point of the play area is pretty far from the brook and would meet septic separation distances for wetlands. In addition, they would have filtration in the rain garden for the nitrogen uptake through the use of organic materials. Mr. Liebman asks for clarification on the distances between the play area, rain garden and wetlands. Mr. Virbickas said it is about 5-10 ft. from the play space to the rain garden and about 25-30 ft. from the play space to the wetlands. The brook is beyond the wetlands edge. Mr. Liebman states from the play space to the brook would then be about 35-40 ft. He did not request a perc test of the wetlands. He understands the concerns about a biomat forming, but the system will have more space with the stone than a typical septic system would to allow for bioremediation. He prefers the soil be tight and slow versus rapid because the first flush will have residence time beyond the drainage time through the rapid turf system. Mr. Massoud continues to express his concerns over the amount of residence time prior to it reaching the brook and the path of migration from the play areas to the rain garden; will the run off reach the rain garden? He also understands the “Got Pee” product removes the odor, but wonders about environmental effects and any effects on the run off. Mr. Virbickus responds that the “Got Pee” product comes as a concentrate and is cut with water based on manufacturer’s information. The evaporation time for the product is similar to water; although there is some alcohol content as part of the germ killing aspect. The amount of urine from the dogs will perculate into the ground rapidly. The water he brought as part of his percolation tests on site dried rapidly. Mr. Schwartz asks if the percolation tests were done in the area of the rain garden and play spaces. Mr. Virbickus said the tests were done in the area of the rain garden and not in the area of the play spaces. He believes the areas would be consistent. Mr. Liebman agrees based EIC Minutes – September 11, 2024 Page 3 on the presence of fill. Mr. Schwartz then asks if the grade will be maintained or scraped down, and about the amount of gravel under the turf. Carol Martin, franchise owner, responds that the surface is currently prepared for turf installation which would be done by Forever Lawn. They will only be skimming about 1”-1.5” inches from the surface to remove some weeds in the area. The rest of the existing gravel would remain and not much excavation would be performed. Mr. Schwartz then expresses his concern over the “Got Pee” product. He understands the product is biodegrable, but contains a chemical prone to Dioxane contamination during manufacturing. He provides research which includes the CT DEEP’s concerns over Dioxane. He requests the applicant finds a new product to serve the same purpose. Mr. Herald asks if the State of Connecticut has dog urine classified as hazardous. Mr. Liebman responds that animal waste is considered the same as human waste. He is unsure how to quantify the amount of urine there would be for 70 dogs which would indicate the amount of nitrogen uptake. The health code would be similar to that of septic systems in regards to distances from wetlands. Since it is near wetlands, you don’t want a point source of nutrient load. You could monitor this with water quality testing of the brook now and then annually, and could monitor practices if an impact is found. He wasn’t able to find published information on treatment of dog urine; only on horse urine. A condition could be added to the approval for the water quality testing which would allow the Commission to request remediation if impacts are found. Mr. Virbickas doesn’t believe that, even if all 75 dogs went at the same time, there will be any issues with groundwater quality. In his 30 years, he has only seem one instance of a spike in a large shopping center. DEEP’s recommendation for a nitogen spike is to add more water, which was, in the case of the shopping center, higher flow toilets. The play areas will provide a widespread area (about 80 ft.) to prevent point discharge. He is concerned with the water quality testing because results could be skewed by what someone does upstream. Mr. Schwartz would recommend testing upstream, downstream, and where it goes into the stream. Mr. Schwartz asks if the rain garden was designed as an overflow measure or designed to treat the runoff. Mr. Virckbas responds that the rain garden was sized and designed based on the DEEP’s latest manual to hold back the first flush. There won’t be any water leaving the rain garden until they exceed the 10 year storm. They originally thought about creating a berm at the edge of the play space instead of a rain garden, but since they are in a flood zone it wouldn’t work well. With the rain gardens they are adding to the flood storage. Mr. Herald asks Mr. Liebman if the water quality testing would be the seventh condition; Mr. Liebman confirms. Mr. Liebman then shares a draft of his thoughts for the additional condition. Mr. Schwartz suggests testing upstream, downstream and at discharge point. Mr. Dufel recommends several feet before the possible discharge point and then downstream to get the differential from the site (within the property lines). He also states that the condition needs to specify the parameters and what you are looking for. Mr. Liebman agrees that they need to determine what nutrients and elements they would like measured. Mr. Virbickus requests that they be allowed to discontinue testing after a specified time period if the results are favorable; Mr. Rose finds this reasonable. Mr. Liebman agrees they are just looking for some baseline information and to see if there is an impact. He adds that they will have to stay within the property lines. Mr. Herald asks if there are any baselines available from current water testing performed in the City; Mr. Liebman clarifies that testing is performed at the reservoirs and not the tributaries. Mr. Liebman states he is not overly concerned there will be an impact, but the water testing would provide the imperical data they want. EIC Minutes – September 11, 2024 Page 4 Mr. Massoud again shares his concerns about the water reaching the rain gardens and possible alternatives. Mr. Liebman said they had discussed additional stone or soil layers under the turf. He then said based on hydraulic movement the water will move laterally in the soil, and since the rain garden is 2 ft. lower, the probability is great. Mr. Virbickus states they could add shredded wood to the compost in the bottom of the rain garden to help with the natural breakdown of the nitrogen. Mr. Massoud asks if a landscape plan for the rain gardens has been provided; Mr. Liebman confirms. Mr. Liebman confirms that the rain garden contains his requested soil mix as a base as well. Mr. Schwartz asks if there are any specifications in the State of CT for volume per dog as in other states for kennels. Mr. Virbickus doesn’t believe so, and states when the health code was written many dog runs were concrete so it was very different. The areas used to be hosed off, but now people manage facilities with water conservation measures. Mr. Liebman shares information from Google that for a 2.5 lb. dog it would be about 72 mL of urine a day. Mr. Virbickus points out that a 2 liter bottle contains 2,000 mL. Mr. Herald makes a motion to table application No. 1220, 55 Kenosia Ave., to change the conditions and have further discussion with the Health Department and Engineering. Chairman Rose asks for any comments or a second to the motion. Mr. Massoud comments that he is interested in the idea of overengineering the stone base for the turf system. Mr. Virbickus responds that the site and turf would be sitting on fill material which runoff would percolate through. For human waste septic systems you need 18” of separation between bottom of the septic system and groundwater, and this site would be about 7- 8 ft. of separation. He respects the concerns but feels it is reaching. He points out that staff provided a report with recommendations, so they felt comfortable with the project. He would accept the addition of a condition for monitoring water quality, but is hopeful the Commission would make a decision this evening. Mr. Dufel is concerned with the Commission attempting to redesign the engineer’s proposal. He feels they either should approve or deny the application. He feels they are taking on the liability by redesigning if the design fails. He is comfortable with adding a condition for testing, but adding depth to the design is not what they should do. Mr. Liebman adds that is the Commission’s job to evolve a product to the best possible solution, but agrees they should not be designing system as they are not engineers. He feels this is an approvable application, and the addition of the monitoring condition would be good. Mr. Liebman points out that Mr. Virbickas has put his professional stamp on the plans, so he is accepting the liability. If the Commission oversteps or requests more stone, they could accept some liability or void a product warranty on the turf. Mr. Virbickas share that the direct impact and loss of wetlands or watercourses are both zero. They are adding about 1,500 sq. ft. of rain gardens that will act as artificial wetlands. If this project isn’t approved, another as-of-right use could move in, such as trucking, a mechanic, or office, that could use the land as-is. They are looking to make improvements to the site. Mr. Herald then withdraws his previous motion to table the application. Motion to approve No. 1220, 55 Kenosia Ave., with 7 conditions was made by Geoff Herald; seconded by Elizabeth Falk. Mr. Schwartz expresses concerns about voting to approve with the use of the current cleaning product. Mr. Herald points out that cleaning products are not their jurisdiction, and the product is approved for use in the State. EIC Minutes – September 11, 2024 Page 5 Mr. Liebman drafts the seventh condition for water quality monitoring including testing on the northern and southern ends of the property (within the property lines), tracking the differentials for nitrogens and other elements, and the requirement for the applicant to submit a remediation application to the DEIC in the event that the differentials increase over time. Mr. Rose also notes it should include a timeline to end testing if the results are favorable. Mr. Dufel said it should specify all of the nitrogen profile. Ms. Falk and Mr. Herald feel the applicant should be able to move on to the next steps in their approval process. Chairman Rose called for a vote on the motion to approve with 7 conditions made by Mr. Herald. Vote is as follows: Ayes from those eligible to vote: Geoff Herald, Elizabeth Falk, Gary Dufel, John Schwartz, and Matthew Rose & Nays from Mark Massoud. Motion is approved. APPLICATION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL: None ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF ACTIONS: None VIOLATIONS: 1. Halas, Barnum Road, Danbury, CT- Cease & Desist Chairman Rose informs the Commission they are working toward an agreement with Halas, but it is not completed yet. Motion to table Halas, Barnum Road- Cease & Desist until the next regularly scheduled meeting was made by Elizabeth Falk; seconded by Geoff Herald. All in favor with Ayes of those eligible to vote: John Schwartz, Elizabeth Falk, Geoff Herald, Mark Massoud, Gary Dufel, Michael Flanagan and Matthew Rose. OTHER MATTERS: None CORRESPONDENCE: None ADJOURNMENT: Motion to adjourn was made by Geoff Herald; seconded by Michael Flanagan. All in favor with Ayes of those eligible to vote: John Schwartz, Elizabeth Falk, Geoff Herald, Mark Massoud, Gary Dufel, Michael Flanagan and Matthew Rose. Meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Melissa Llera Recording Secretary