Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Equalization Tank topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cheltenham resident asks about air permitting, odor risks for Melrose equalization tank; staff point to prior presentation
Summary
A local resident raised questions about a proposed temporary sewage equalization tank for the Melrose Development project, asking whether the tank has air permitting or odor controls; township staff and the township engineer said the tank is for sewage and pointed to an earlier presentation and posted materials for details.
A Cheltenham resident asked the Building and Zoning Committee on June 8 whether a proposed temporary equalization tank tied to the Melrose Development project is for sewage or stormwater and whether air permits or odor controls (such as carbon filtration) are in place.
At Citizens Forum, the resident, identified by the chair as Mister Peterson, said his limited understanding was that the tank would be “about 60 feet wide” and asked whether the tank would emit sewer gas and whether any air-permitting or filtration system had been applied for. “So I’m assuming they have some sort of carbon filter or some sort of other filtration system for the air that’s gonna come out of that tank,” he said.
The township’s representative responded that the tank is a sewage equalization tank and suggested Mr. Peterson review a prior building-and-zoning presentation that included maps, proximity to neighboring homes and operational procedures. Julia Detwiler offered to provide links and contact information for the presentation and supporting documents.
Township staff said the zoning hearing-board approval was the first step and that further permitting (including any necessary environmental or emissions permitting) follows zoning approval; staff directed questions about detailed engineering, overflow protections and operations to the applicant’s presentation materials and to the township engineer’s review.
The committee did not change the decision at the meeting. Staff said they would circulate the zoning hearing board documents and that the April building-and-zoning meeting included a fuller presentation of the Melrose proposal; Mr. Peterson was advised to review those materials and follow up with staff via the contact information Detwiler offered.
Next steps: staff to provide public links to the project presentation and decision text; technical permitting questions remain with the applicant and the agencies that issue environmental and air permits.
