Fairfield WPCA delays decision on E. Commerce Drive sewer connection amid easement and repair concerns
Loading...
Summary
The Fairfield Water Pollution Control Authority postponed action on a sewer connection for 730 and 770 E. Commerce Drive to Feb. 18 after engineers and the utility agreed open-cut repairs are likely infeasible and asked Wright Pierce and town legal staff to confirm whether trenchless alternatives and revised easement language would preserve future repair options.
FAIRFIELD — The Fairfield Water Pollution Control Authority on Jan. 21 moved to postpone a decision on a proposed sewer connection and building plan for 730 and 770 E. Commerce Drive, citing unresolved easement language and the need for further engineering review.
Robert Prior, a professional engineer and land surveyor with LandTech, told the commission the project’s technical review shows the existing 30-inch sewer and the downstream 36-inch main have sufficient capacity for the development and that as-built records suggest the pipe was installed by jacking or tunneling rather than open cut. “Wright Pierce concurred with our position that this was not a feasible methodology,” Prior said, summarizing a January 13 memo from the town’s consulting engineer.
Why it matters: board members pressed for clarity about how the town could access and repair the sewer if a building were placed over the line, noting the existing 10-foot excavation easement and the practical limits of working inside it. Prior presented a proposed easement plan that preserves the 10-foot easement under the building, increases the permanent easement to about 20 feet centered on the pipe, and adds a temporary staging easement for bypass pumps and equipment.
Board members focused on two outstanding technical questions: whether trenchless replacement methods beyond lining (for example, jack-and-bore or pipe bursting) are feasible in the area where borings indicate rock near the pipe, and whether receiving or launching pits needed for those methods would fit without risking building foundations. Nico, from the development team, said the building uses drilled shafts and caissons and that the foundation approach should minimize impact: “I just we took as a 2 part system … we’re never digging down to get to that pipe,” Nico said in explaining the team’s intent to avoid direct excavation under foundations.
The commission also asked Wright Pierce — the town’s consultants already advising on capacity and methods — to opine specifically whether the proposed easement and staging areas would preserve alternatives to simple cured-in-place lining. Town staff clarified Wright Pierce did not evaluate easement legal language and recommended the town attorney review proposed easement revisions so the utility does not “give up any of its rights to be able to excavate as needed.”
Motion and next steps: A board member moved to postpone action to the Feb. 18 WPCA meeting (or earlier by special virtual meeting if legal and engineering reviews are completed). The motion was seconded and approved unanimously. The commission requested a conceptual engineering memo addressing receiving/launch pit sizes and whether trenchless replacement methods would be precluded by the proposed easement design. The board also asked staff to coordinate town attorney review of proposed easement language.
The outcome leaves the engineering findings largely supported by prior memos but requires additional written confirmation from Wright Pierce and legal signoff on any easement revisions before a final WPCA connection approval.
