Town of Buxton Planning Board
Minutes
Monday, August 25, 2014 at 7 p.m.
Recorded by Krystal Dyer
Members in attendance: Keith Emery, Chad Poitras, Mark Blier, Christopher Carroll, Jeremiah Ross, III, Chris Baldinelli and Lawrence Curtis
Members not in attendance: none
Others in attendance: Bill Hoffman with FST, Henry Huntley, Cliff Thomas, Code Officer Fred Farnham and Fire Chief Nathan Schools.
Keith called the meeting to order at 7pm with the Pledge of allegiance
Site walk review for Danny Bouzianis or Old Port Realty, LLC for a 5,250 sq. ft. retail building with drive through and Restaurant at the Roberts Corner project (Hannaford Complex). Tax map 9, Lot 33.
Keith opened with a review of the site walk and asking Bill Hoffman from FST Engineers to present the review. Bill began saying he is representing the owner who proposes to build on building “C” of a plan proposed several years ago for a small retail building. The shape and the parking have changed from the original plan, but it is essentially the same. A new stormwater pond is proposed on the east side of the lot, with a reconfiguration of the drive thru and the pond. Two issues came up at the site walk: 1. The setback from the ROW is to the closet part of the building, which would be the overhang. This will be accomplished by narrowing the drive-thru driveway the equivalent to the overhang. 2. If the building needs to be sprinkled? The current fire
protection proposal is to connect to the fire line that services the Hannaford building, which is a 53,000 gallon tank and bringing the water out to a hydrant on the corner. The original plan was to use this as a secondary source of fire protection, but the liner was not constructed properly in the existing pond. At the time, Hannaford was okay as long as the pond took care of their stormwater, because they had their own fire protection. A stand of trees will remain along Pennell Road as a vegetative buffer, due to the residential building.
There are no Comments from the Board at this time.
Fire chief, Nathan Schools it is in his professional opinion that the building should be sprinkled. The initial problem is that the IBC building code requires commercial buildings over 5,000 sq. ft. to be sprinkled, but this building is proposed to be split into three separate sections. Each fire area will have two or three hour rated sheetrock separating each area.
Chief Schools added that the problem goes back to the original Conditional Use for the Hannaford plan. Starting on page two of the FST’s summary of the public water supply, listed as an active hydrant, however, Chief Schools does not understand how they can access for fire suppression, but not for drinking water. How can they do this? Can they become their own approved utility district? Chief Schools believes the intent was to have access to Hannaford’s water well. So why is it we cannot have access to the water supply, but we can have the access to the fire suppression. Then listed on attachment C, Page ten section 8.2.B.8 conditional use permit will have plenty of demands to meet the fire suppression purposes. The proposed states “it would meet domestic and
fire suppression services to the retail development”. He is not sure if that is for the Hannaford building or to include each phase of the retail development. On Page 18, number 17 they have given us access to the dry hydrant through means of an easement. However that hydrant has been declared useless to the fire dept. Failed the ISO test because it cannot hold water. Also on page 21 condition 8.2.B.8 phase II states no other work needs to be done because there is already an active hydrant, however there is not. This is why Chief Schools is before the Board requesting for the building to be sprinkled. We do not have a history of being able to provide water in that hydrant. The land is dry and the area has not been able to self-fill.
Keith questions the requirement for sheetrock. Fire rated sheetrock to the roof line will be required. Chief Schools said “absolutely! The Building Code requires it, however when you add sprinklers the fire rating can be reduces. Without sprinklers each occupancy may only need a one hour vs. three hour. “
Jere said the applicant is proposing a well on site, if it had a backup generator, could this provide protection for the building. Chief Schools said “possibly, if they had their own storage tank.” Jere continued, “Is there enough capacity in Hannaford’s existing storage tank to sprinkle both Hannaford and this new building?” Chief Schools cannot answer this, but it sounds like that is what the intention was and hope that the two buildings do not catch on fire at the same time. The existing tanks holds 53,000 gallons and depending on the hydrant rating, this would be the determining factor for firefighting. A subdivision requires 2- 5,000 gallon tanks. Chief Schools references the Aceto plan and the pond. They are required to show proof that the pond
can hold the water. Jere says the other option is for the existing front pond could be lined and it could hold water, therefore could be used for a standpipe system instead of a hydrant or sprinkler system at all. The hydrant is not a self-filling location. Chief Schools understands that the conditional use permit does not require the fire protection, but the current pond does not work as intended.
Chris B. questions what happens if the pond freezes, what is the plan in winter? There are four other buildings to be built, that’s why the fire chief is standing here requesting sprinklers in the building. We do not know what will happen to the land once the other four building are built and we now have another large commercial building being proposed on the other side of Narragansett trail. The Board is setting a precedence here, Hannaford was easy the ordinance Building Code required it to be sprinkled.
Chad inquires if there is any middle ground that would not cost this project as much as sprinklers or another alternative that they could propose. Chief Schools said “The hybrid would be a public hydrant that sits right in front of Dunkin Donuts. To meet in the middle, would be another large storage tank. Chief Schools cautioned, that sometimes what we think are not as cost effective as we think they are. Chief Schools recommends is to sprinkle, as that option requires the least maintenance and quickest means of action for a fire. Storage tanks could be located in the basement of the building.
Bill Hoffman responds by adding the existing dry hydrant on the pond is not part of the answer and should be removed. It is the intent to tap in to the storage tank and the hydrant is to afford the ability of other businesses other than Hannaford having the advantage of that tank. There is no outdoor hydrant. You pick your maximum demand and assume you don’t have everything burning at one time. Currently, they are proposing to tap into the existing Hannaford fire protection tank. The first pond was built on rocks and the liner was never constructed to meet the requirement. Bill said the new pond is going to be lined with a plastic high density polyethylene where the seams are welded and will not have any leakage at all. Bill would be open to moving the dry
hydrant along Portland road with a capacity of 150,000 gallons. With the question with what happens with Ice, you need 60,000 gallons with a fire pond, and you need to plan for 62,000 for normal evaporation. Bill is willing to do a lined pond with more than the ISO capacity on Portland Road and the connection to the 53,000 gallon Hannaford tank.
Mark asked if you could take your well water and fill the pond. Bill says they do not know what the high yield will be for Dunkin Donuts. The other well was a high yield well with 35 gallons per minute. Possibility with the existing well at Hannaford and a much higher yield than we expected. Mark asked what is inside so the water to keep it from freezing. Bill stated that the hydrant has a shutoff during winter, it is pumped out and filled with antifreeze. NFPA requires annual hydrant inspections. The tanks are insulated and will not freeze.
Chief Schools continues – if the hydrant was in this packet, a pressurized hydrant accessible year round and tested annually. Who tests the hydrant, we are not a testing agency. My preference would be to have the hydrant accessible from Portland road, as long as it will hold the water and meets what it says it will meet. Acceptable in-between the other two options.
Jere would like a condition of approval that the hydrant in front of Dunkin Donuts will be for any fire! Given an easement for training, maintenance, incident use, and set up to our specifications at both locations. Chief Schools would like to see the specification for the other tank, because if Hannaford needed the 53,000 gallons to meet NFPA demand for their sprinkler system, it may be an issue to tap into that for this building. There is likely a reason why there is a certain amount of water in that tank. It may not support the flow and how fast will it refill when used for testing.
Keith asked who would refill the tank if it is used for a fire across the street. And what if this is also drinking water inside the building, this could cause a problem if the fire department uses it. This creates an issues if the fire pond does not work. Once we accept the tank, it is our responsibility. Jere asked Chief Schools if he would assist the Board in writing up the necessary specifications for the maintenance and testing of the dry hydrant. The applicant is responsible for the hydrant, but the town has an easement to use it.
Chris C. asked Chief Schools if the original pond did not fail, would he still be requesting the sprinklers. Chief Schools replied, “Yes, he would still be asking for the building to be sprinkled. If this was an open building, the building code would require it to be sprinkled, but this building is split into three separate spaces, so it is not required. Jere said the Board cannot enforce something that is not in the ordinance, but if the Fire Chief suggests ordinance amendments we can present to the town for a future vote.
- Easement for the dry hydrant on Portland Road and in front of Dunkin Donuts.
- Testing schedule and who will conduct test.
- Fix the building overhang.
Bill Hoffman is asked if he would consider putting in sprinklers. Bill says if we could overcome the issue of public utility, which is the obstacle and needs to be researched. Chris C. is concerned with the morning traffic, could there potential be a hang-up for commuter traffic. We could require them to monitor the traffic flow for the first year and possibly look at it again.
Bill requests for the public hearing to be on the 22nd.
- Motioned by Chris C., seconded by Chris B. to set the public hearing for Sept. 22, 2014 for Old Port Realty, LLC, the motion passed with a 7 – 0 vote.
CEO Report: none at this time
Approval of Minutes: August 11, 2014
- Motioned by Larry, seconded by Chris C. to approve the minutes of August 11, 2014 as amended. The motion passed with a 6 – 0 – 1, Chad abstained.
Approval of Bills: none at this time.
Communications:
Main Townsman – August 2014
SMRPDC – Comprehensive planning municipal planning
Other Business:
~Review findings of facts for Chad & Cheryl Poitras
- Motioned by Chris C. to accept the findings and decisions for Chad & Cheryl Poitras for a funeral home at 498 long Plains Road, tax map 3, Lot 47 as amended. Seconded by Mark the motion passed with a 6 - 0 – 1 vote, with Chad abstaining. Chris Baldinelli was in the audience at the last meeting, which allowed him to vote.
~Chris Carroll met with a representative from the Rural Active Living Assessment. We discussed the active living amenities and surrounding towns. We have to go out and assess certain portions of roads for walking and biking ability. Participating in the study will bring $1,000 to the Parks and Rec. department.
~Keith welcomes Chris Baldinelli and Chad Poitras to the Board.
~If no applications by Tuesday, September 2, 2014, than Keith will cancel the September 8th meeting.
Attendees may address the Board on the evening’s business: None
Adjourn:
- Mark moved to adjourn at 8:10 p.m., seconded by Larry, a unanimous vote.
Approval Date: 9-22-14
________________________ ___________________
Keith Emery, Chairman Date
[type or paste agenda here]
| 
