Hampden Planning Board hears about storage facility wastewater concerns

Nov. 18, 2021 | Sarah Heinonen
sheinonen@thereminder.com

HAMPDEN – The opposition to a proposed self-storage facility at 2 Somers Rd. in Hampden changed tactics at the Nov. 10 Planning Board meeting. While the citizens’ organization Save Hampden had previously emphasized the damage to property values and the “rural character” of the town as the main reasons for opposition, at the most recent meeting the potential of chemicals entering the town’s aquifer took center stage.

Before Save Hampden spoke on the issue, Attorney Daniel Garvey was joined by Robert DiBenedetto of the engineering firm Frydryk & Douglas. Previously, the board had heard about the project from another engineer from the firm, Joseph Peznola.

Garvey told the board the plans for the facility had been changed to incorporate previous board requests, such as 50-foot setbacks that would remain untouched. To accommodate this, two 30-foot storage unit buildings were shortened to 20 feet and another two were removed from the plans altogether. The total square footage of units dropped from 54,000 to 43,000 with the changes.

The new design included a 100-foot distance from all neighboring wells. Matthews confirmed that any retention basins on the plan lie outside the water retention district.

Other board requests that had been put into the new plans included a sidewalk along the property’s East Longmeadow Road frontage and 8-foot solid aluminum fencing around the site, instead of the 6-foot chain-link fence that had been proposed.

Garvey noted that the changes that have been made are a result of comments from both the board and residents.

Mary Grasetti, one of the leaders of Save Hampden, spoke for the group, as its lawyer, Seth Wilson was unavailable. She stated that the group was going to focus on the water supply that evening and had “experts” to address the board on the risks associated with a hazardous material leak or spill, despite a planned contract with customers prohibiting hazardous materials on site.

The first person was Patrick Coyne, a resident who said he had experience in investment. He talked about the “financial risk” associated with the possibility of a hazardous material spill at the site.

Addressing the customer contract that the company would be employing, Coyne read from an industry advocacy source that stated customers may not always follow contract rules.

Coyne said each of two public water wells are within 850 feet of the proposed facility. He said hazardous material storage is considered a medium to high risk to water supplies by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP). He read off what is considered hazardous by various state and federal agencies.

Coyne told the board that one gallon of oil can contaminate up to 1,000 gallons of groundwater. He said that the cleanup of contaminated water can cost “thousands to millions of dollars” and cited a document from the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He cited the contamination of four home wells on Main Street and the $500,000 of money from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) that is being used to fix the issue.

When Coyne told the audience that insurance policies would not cover any contamination that spreads off of the property, Planning Board member Jason Barroso interjected, saying that runs contrary to his experience working as a senior industrial account manager at Waste Management. He said that he had worked in a lot of ground cleanups that had been covered by insurance.

Barroso asked Garvey if he would provide written documentation of what is covered by the company’s insurance policy, to which the attorney agreed. Turning to Coyne, Barroso said, “You’re not telling the truth to these folks.” Chair John Matthews broke up the interaction.

Later, a resident working in insurance told Barroso that general insurance coverage was changed in 1986 to exclude environmental pollution. According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, environmental insurance, which offers coverage for spills and subsequent cleanups, is often a separate policy.

Resident Mark Feeney, who didn’t share his area of expertise, read from the town bylaws and M.G.L. Chapter 40A, which regulates planning boards. He said the purpose of zoning bylaws is the “protection of residents.” He read the prohibited uses, including hazardous material storage, for a water supply protection overlay district, within which the property partially sits.

He claimed that infiltration bases must be more than 100-feet from neighboring properties so residents can move their wells, if needed. He described this as “common sense.”

Barroso pointed out that the infiltration basins are not in the overlay district, but Feeney responded that the neighboring homes are and the bylaw would apply to them if the facility were to be located next door. Barroso told him he would get clarification from the Board of Health.

Feeney went on to say a self-storage facility isn’t “commercial” in nature, one of the allowed uses, but that instead it was a “business” use. Matthews read him the definition of commercial – “for monetary gain” – and said he was taking sections of the bylaw out of context. He then explained that Feeney was confusing “uses” and “zones” as terminology.

Feeney called into question the fact that Garvey planned to use impermeable asphalt and the abutting facility proposed for 16 Somers Rd. planned to use permeable asphalt. Each developer has previously stated that their choice was best.

He said that permeable asphalt wouldn’t treat the wastewater. Matthews asked him if he was happy with the infiltration system being proposed by Garvey. Fenney said yes, but then backtracked, stating he might find fault with it.

The two went back and forth for several minutes on whether the infiltration basin closest the neighbors was too close to the groundwater before it was realized that Feeney was referring to the specifications for another basin on the plans.

Like Feeney, resident Joe Sibilia did not explain his area of expertise, but spoke about the process for attaining a stormwater permit from the Building Department. Sibilia said that neither Garvey nor the petitioner for the abutting self-storage facility obtained a wastewater permit before the special permit began and that may make the applications defective.

The issue Sibilia referenced came from a decision at the Nov. 9 Board of Selectmen meeting in which Building Commissioner Wendell Hubert was selected as the board’s designated agent for the issuance of wastewater permits. The bylaw states that a wastewater permit or a waiver of one, must be obtained “prior to the issuance of any site plan approval or development permit.”

Matthews told Sibilia that Town Counsel Rose Crowley had been in contact with Town Administrator Bob Markel on the issue. Matthews quoted her from an email to Markel stating, “the stormwater permit process and the special permit are separate,” and therefore, not a reason to deny the special permit. In fact, the email states, a delay in the Planning Board’s state-mandated special permit timeline to obtain a stormwater permit, “may lead to constructive approval.”

While the two projects, the special permits of which were begun under a different Planning Board chair, had not gone through the Building Department, Matthews said that all projects in the future would adhere to that process before coming before the Planning Board.

Grasetti ended Save Hampden’s presentation by saying, “We’re not people here just to shut something down. We’re here because we have real, valid concerns.”

After a vote by the Planning Board on whether to close the hearing, they decided to continue it so that more information could be gathered, specifically whether the town’s engineering consultant, Tighe & Bond, approve the wastewater system changes and the document from Garvey’s insurance company. The continuation date is Dec. 1.

Share this: