Plainfield Township appealed the determination in Bellas' August 10 letter, with a multi-pronged argument. One is that there is no evidence that the engineering required for DEP to make the original decision was done. Another is that whatever design was done, the construction was not as proposed. For example, township consultant Jason Smith reported at the February 21, 2019 planning commission review that an outlet structure that was in the design was not installed. Sedimentation basins are supposed to have outlets. They are also supposed to trap sediment, which is periodically removed. The township has suggested that evidence this is being done is lacking. Note that the township was not appealing the original waiver.
Grand Central rep makes statement that appeal period has passed - so?
Waste Management/Grand Central representative Scott Perin made a statement at the February 21 meeting that whatever happened in 2007 or 2008, the appeal period has passed. The township received notice, didn't appeal. Tough cookies.
No shit. That isn't the point. Perin was also not on point at the very first review of Synagro's proposal in November 2016, "but we have over 300 acres" - which also wasn't on point. They are now trying to cram this pile of crap into a postage stamp-sized property with less than 2 acres of open space. Stay focused.
Apparently Perin believes the fact that DEP looked the other way 10 years ago means they can again. It's just a hole in the ground - we fill in holes all the time. Not holes that are ponds being used (allegedly) as sedimentation basins. And no, not again, not with everyone in the community and the Delaware Riverkeeper Network ready to sue DEP's ass if they issue a permit. DEP better move carefully, even though they are promoting this kind of facility and everyone knows they want to grant Synago permits.
New DEP regulations for sedimentation basins
A lot has changed on the regulatory front since 10 years ago. For example - the first one and last one - since 2012 the bottom of sedimentation basins must be above the level of groundwater. The surface of sedimentation basin #2 is at the level of groundwater - its height goes up and down with the level of the groundwater surrounding the basin (pond), since there is no outlet.
Synagro stated that when the proposed fill (100,000 cu yds) has been placed into the pond, the new depth of the pond will be about 90'. A question that the township may be asking is, how can the bottom of a 90' deep sedimentation basin #2 be above the surface level of the water that is in it? This assumes that such a significant modification would cause DEP to apply the latest criteria prior to granting the same waiver - a waiver that is issued for sedimentation basins that are properly engineered. Point being, if you did or didn't properly engineer it 10 years ago may make no difference. You need to engineer it today before you make substantial changes.
And whether or not it is actually functioning as a sedimentation basin is important. If it isn't, then perhaps extending a waiver that never should have been granted in the first place won't even be possible.
Thus, there is quite a battle shaping up over the freshwater pond on the proposed Synagro site. If Synagro can't fill it in because it can't obtain a waiver, its trucks will be driving in the pond, and employee parking will be below ground and water level. They would need zoning variances for that for sure.
Let's not forget that even if Synagro receives DEP approval to partially fill the pond, the township is still arguing that its 50' open space buffer from a water body applies from its existing edge - this buffer would extend almost all the way to the north side of the proposed building!
Let's not forget that even if Synagro receives DEP approval to partially fill the pond, the township is still arguing that its 50' open space buffer from a water body applies from its existing edge - this buffer would extend almost all the way to the north side of the proposed building!
Blue line through shaded area just below building is the existing edge of the pond
Synagro may do a hydrogeological study
At the February 21 review meeting, township consultants again stated they felt an analysis of the existing conditions in the pond should be required, and planner Bob Simpson asked Synagro attorney Witmer "are you going to do a study or not, yes or no?", to which Witmer essentially replied "no". Near the end of the meeting, Hecht asked meekly, "what would you like to see in a hydrogeological study?" which appeared to surprise both planners and consultants. Not because he was indicating finally Synagro might do a study, but because this is a question for Synagro's engineers.
A few meetings ago, Synagro's engineer Pullar stated "we're looking at that", the last time the question was asked "are you going to do a study?" The typical answer for a year and a half was "no". Hecht should have had the "what would we test for?" discussion with Pullar over a year ago. Pullar seemed surprised last fall though when planner Dingle asked about water quantity, and Pullar replied "so you care about both water quality and quantity in the pond?" Perhaps Pullar isn't the expert to be asking...
