Newton Planning Board
Minutes of public hearing and meeting
NOVEMBER 11, 2008
Page 1 of 8
Planning Board Minutes of October 14, 2008 Public Hearing & Meeting
All minutes are in draft form until approved by the Planning Board. Please check subsequent minutes for approval of and/or amendments to these minutes.
1. Call to Order
Chairperson Miles called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM. In attendance were: Chairperson, Ann Miles; Vice Chairman, Jim Doggett; Planning Board Members, Barbara White and Frank Gibbs; and Alternate Fred Gundersen. Minutes were transcribed and typed by Administrative Assistant, Lisa Babcock.
Miles appointed Gundersen to stand in for Pettit.
2. Victory Fuel requests a Public Hearing for a Minor Non-Residential Site Plan at 191 South Main Street to install 2 – 30,000 gallon propane tanks. The property is referenced as Tax Map 14, Block 1, Lot 26.
James Hanley, PE of Civil Design Consultants; Charles Zilch of S.E. Cummings & Associates; and Leo LaRochelle of Victory Fuel were in attendance.
Miles opened the public hearing for minor non-residential site plan review for Victory Fuel.
Mr. Hanley distributed a response letter dated 11/11/08 addressing Mike Vignale's comment letter and comments made at Technical Review and a revised plan set to the Board.
Mr. Hanley explained that the property is zoned commercial and is boarded on the south by Route 108, the west by Valleyfield Town Houses which lies over the border in Plaistow, the north by vacant land owned by the NH Fish & Game and the east by existing commercial property.
On site is an existing two-storey office/maintenance building and four existing 20,000 gallon above ground oil tanks. There is a loading area between the building and the oil tanks.
Mr. Hanley stated that although the oil tanks are above ground they are depressed approximately 10' below the surface of the loading area. There is a retaining wall along the driveway between the loading are and the tanks.
There is a pocket of wetlands in the northeast corner of the lot.
The proposal before the Board is for the placement of two 30,000 gal liquid propane tanks which will be located directly to the east of the existing oil tanks. These tanks measure approximately 47' in length and are 11' wide. There will be 5' between the tanks and the pad will extend 5' beyond the tanks around the perimeter. The surface treatment for the area around the concrete pad will be ¾" crushed stone, to avoid both an impervious surface and the need for mowing grass near the tanks.
The existing retaining wall will be extended and the propane tanks will also be depressed about 10' below the surface. There will be a 6' high security fence along the perimeter of the tanks and there will be a pedestrian safety rail along the top portion of the retaining wall which is noted on the second sheet of the plans.
There will be site grading associated with the project. The area of disturbance will be approximately 4150 sf.
The facility has 24 hour on site security. For lighting, there are 3 Wallpacks located along the face of the building. The lights have a manual override and also a motion detector. The lights would come on if there were any activity behind the fence alerting the security person.
Victory anticipates one 9,000 gal tanker coming in and filling up per day.
Mr. Hanley then reviewed Mike Vignale's comment letter dated 11/9/08.
1) Revise the contour line for elevation 128 to match…
Mr. Hanley explained that this was a type-o and has been corrected.
2) Tank area should be enclosed by a 6' fence…site lighting will be required to adequately illuminate the new tank area…
The fence was added to the plans; the lighting is addressed in his letter.
3) Pedestrian safety railings…at the top of the proposed retaining wall…
This is required by building code and is noted on the plans.
4) …retaining wall will be reviewed and inspected by Town's Building Dept…Fire Department will review the safety aspects…
Addressed by notes 11, 12 & 13.
5) Final plans must be stamped by a Certified Wetland Scientist.
This has been added to the plans.
Mr. Hanley then explained the steps that the applicant must complete in order to complete the project. They must prepare construction documents to be reviewed by the Building Inspector, the Fire Chief and the State Fire Marshall. They will be designed in accordance with NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) 58, liquefied petroleum gas code. The NFPA is a federal agency that dictates how facilities such as this must be designed and engineered.
The actual construction documents will contain any additional details we need to address building code requirements like retaining walls, tank details and foundation details.
The foundation design will be based on some type of geotechnical information – dig test pits to figure out what types of soils we have, where the ground water is and confirm that the soils are sufficient to support the tanks.
There is a fire suppression obligation – any petroleum tank in excess of 4,000 gallons requires some sort of fire suppression system in accordance with NFPA rules. That will be addressed by the construction documents in addition to valves, piping and electrical systems details.
The last item that will need to be addressed by the applicant and his engineers prior to construction is a Fire Safety Analysis which is an audit conducted by someone who is familiar with fire safety regulations, design and construction practices. The Fire Safety Analysis reviews the following items:
1) Ensure that the system design conforms to NFPA regulations.
2) On site specific review – they will go to the site and look at the measures that are in place now and confirm that those measures will adequately address the proposed plan. If there are improvements that need to be done, that will be noted in the safety assessment.
3) Off site specific review 1 – they look at this facilitie's impact on its abutters.
4) Off site specific review 2 – they also look at the uses around the facility to determine if there is use that could increase risk or impede safety measures.
5) They conduct a review of the local fire department to ensure they have sufficient personnel and training to address any potential risks.
6) They ensure that there is a sufficient water supply and sufficient water pressure.
Gundersen asked if there is a training course for the personnel who will be using the tanks. Mr. Hanley said he did not know but would find out.
Miles asked for abutter comments.
Betty Mann (Valleyfield Town Houses) asked who would be using the propane. Mr. Hanley stated that Victory Fuel would serve as a distribution center for southern NH.
John Wasserman (Valleyfield Town Houses) asked how thick the tanks are; he noted that he has seen hunting in the NH Fish & Game area to the north of the site. Mr. Hanley stated that the tanks are 0.711" thick.
Miles asked Mr. Hanley to explain why the tanks are above ground. Mr. Hanley said that inside the tanks, the propane is in liquefied form. Once the propane mixes with air, it turns to a gas. If the tanks were below ground, and there was a leak, the liquid propane would leak into the ground. Since the tanks are above ground, if there is a leak, the gas would dissipate into the atmosphere. Also, being above ground, the tanks are easier to inspect and maintain.
Peter Mann (Valleyfield Town Houses) asked how far the tanks are from the nearest residence. Mr. Hanley said approximately 360'. Mr. Mann then asked how big of an explosion could both tanks cause. Mr. Hanley said no structures can be built within 50' and there are limitations up to 150'. That is considered the destructive zone. Then, beyond that, there is a 250' radius that, if there were a leak, by the time the gas were to travel 250' it dissipates to a non-dangerous level. Mr. Hanley said this information is based on his research on the subject. He added that these distances don't take into account the fact that there will be a 2' thick concrete wall beside the tanks.
Mr. Mann asked if Victory has any experience dealing with propane. Mr. Hanley was not sure. Ms. Mann asked how close the guard is to the tanks. Mr. Hanley said 50'.
Mr. Mann asked if there was a gate at the 108 entrance. There is not.
David Jones (Valleyfield Town Houses) asked what the hours of operation are. Mr. LaRochelle said 7:00 am – 6:00 pm. Mr. Jones said he has heard trucks there earlier than 7:00 am.
Mr. Jones said there are 32 families at Valleyfield. He wanted to know if the propane tanks exploded, would the oil tanks explode as well. How do we know if the companies picking up the propane are safe? What happens if Newton is not equipped to deal with an emergency?
Mr. Hanley said if the fire department is not equipped to handle an emergency at the site, the plan would have to be modified.
Miles noted that the fire chief is looking into the water supply available to the site, and that having an adequate water supply is a concern for Newton. Miles also said it would be helpful if Victory put a well on site. She also recommended that the abutters discuss the issues with the Plaistow Fire Department.
Miles said we should consider all of the different problems we have to face whether it's evacuating homes, what we have in terms of traffic on 108, which is a state road, and the site distances at the entrances of Valleyfield and Victory – those kinds of issues are very important to us.
Peter Mann asked what the target date is for installing the tanks and who should abutters contact if they have more questions. Mr. Hanley said probably February. Miles added that the abutters could contact the Planning Board secretary if they have any questions at any time during the process.
Mr. Jones asked if Victory would be allowed to do any further expansion – he is worried about safety and property values.
Miles said that she would personally be concerned about there being anything else at the site.
Mr. Jones asked if the security guard has any special training. Mr. Hanley was not sure. Mr. Jones asked if a security guard is required by law. Mr. Hanley said he did not think it was required.
Mr. Jones asked if Victory would have to appear before the Board again if they decided to have more than one truck pick up fuel each day. Miles said that the Board's responsibility is with the safety and proper engineering of the site. The Board of Selectmen is responsible for enforcing the Town's regulations.
Miles asked Mr. Hanley to keep the Planning Board informed of the progress of the project and where they are in the process.
Mr. Mann asked if the tanks would be used to fill individual propane tanks, Mr. Hanley said the tanks are not for individual use.
Doggett moved to accept jurisdiction of the minor non-residential site plan to add propane tanks at Victory Fuel. Second by Gundersen. Motion carried unanimously.
Miles asked for Board member input.
Doggett asked if there is a ladder or any other means to get down into the depressed area around the tanks. Mr. Hanley said there are ladders going down into the oil tank area. Doggett said ladders going into the propane area should be shown on the plan.
Doggett said he would like to see the existing lighting on the plans.
Mr. Hanley said the NFPA has specific lighting requirements and that most activity would occur during daylight.
Mr. Jones asked if the lighting would impact the nearby development. Mr. Hanley said that any additional lighting would be similar to what is there now and they do not expect to impact the development.
White asked how much higher the propane tanks will stand compared to the oil tanks. Mr. Hanley said the propane tanks will be about 5' higher than the oil tanks.
Mr. Jones asked if the Board can deny the application if all of the criteria are met. Miles said there would have to be a significant reason to deny the application, but that it is important to discuss all of the potential safety issues.
Doggett moved to grant conditional approval for the minor non-residential site plan to install propane tanks at Victory Fuel subject to the following:
1) Existing and proposed lighting to be shown on the plan.
2) Decent/ascent mechanisms such as ladders or stairs to access the depressed area around the propane tanks must be shown on the plans.
Second by White. Motion carried unanimously.
Miles closed the public hearing for the minor non-residential site plan at Victory Fuel.
3. Joseph Ferrandi request for Bond Reduction and Town acceptance of Patriot Drive.
Mr. Ferrandi was present and addressed the Board. He said that his attorney is working on preparing the road deed and cistern deed but they are not complete yet.
Miles asked Mr. Ferrandi to address the comments on Mike Vignale's punch list dated 11/10/08.
Mr. Ferrandi said the cores had been drilled and the re-paving had been completed. He said his contractor is working on re-grading at the detention basin. He also said he has arranged a meeting between his contractor and the Mike Vignale for Thursday morning.
Doggett moved to continue the discussion of the acceptance of Patriot Drive to the work session. Second by White. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Ferrandi then requested a bond reduction for work already completed. The Board reviewed a letter from Mike Vignale dated 11/10/08 recommending a reduction in the amount $15,301.04.
White moved to approve a bond reduction in the amount of $15,301.04 for Mr. Ferrandi for Patriot Drive. Second by Gundersen. Discussion: Gibbs asked if there would be enough left over for the 10% holdback. It was determined that approximately $15,000 is needed for the holdback and over $19,000 would remain after this reduction. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Ferrandi said he also had an occupancy permit for 9 Patriot Drive that needs Planning Board approval, but he didn't bring it because he didn't think the Planning Board would be able to sign it. Miles said the Planning Board can sign the CO; the Building Department has final sign-off. She suggested that Mr. Ferrandi drop the CO off at the Planning Board office and it will be signed.
4. Review Proposed Language for Zoning Ordinances: The Board briefly discussed the proposed language provided by David West. But since West was not present, they decided to continue the bulk of the discussion to the work session. The Board did make the following comments:
Regarding setbacks for kennels, Gibbs suggested adding the words "animal enclosures" so that the setback requirements would be for all animals, not just dogs. The Board also determined that animal enclosures should not be allowed within the 25' buffer zone.
The Board reviewed two Wind Turbine models and determined that the RPC model was a better fit. Discussion will continue at the next work session (11/25).
6. Acceptance of Minutes.
Doggett moved to accept the minutes of the October 28, 2008 public hearing. Second by White. Motion carried unanimously.
7. Manifests.
Doggett moved to authorize the Chair to sign the Operating Budget manifest, dated 11/11/08, in the amount $404.31. Second by Gundersen. Motion carried unanimously.
Doggett moved to authorize the Chair to sign the NPREA manifest, dated 11/11/08, in the amount $2,391.57. Second by White. Motion carried 4-0-1 with Gundersen abstaining.
8) Other Board Business
a) The Board reviewed a letter from Mike Vignale dated 11/4/08 regarding digital mapping. The secretary was directed to forward the letter to David West.
b) The Board reviewed a letter from Mike Vignale dated 10/29/08 regarding a field change at Katherine Drive. The change allows the road profile to be lower than shown on the approved plans, is a minor change and is an improvement over the original plans.
Kim Vaillant arrive at 8:30.
c) The Board reviewed a complaint form submitted by Kim Pettit on 10/28/08. The form was forwarded to the Selectmen and the Conservation Commission, it concerns cutting along a scenic road, Heath Street.
Gundersen offered to take photos of scenic roads to make a record of existing trees. Gibbs suggested that a tree survey be required for development on scenic roads and that trees be noted on plans.
White moved to add the requirement of a tree survey to the regulations. The motion was tabled to the next work session so that more research could be done.
d) The Board then discussed outgoing correspondence. Letters were sent regarding S&R and White attended a site walk with the Conservation Commission. White said the wetlands appear to be intact and some grading had been done on the driveway and behind the detention pond to direct runoff toward the wetlands and away from abutters.
Miles said she observed work going on on Saturdays and that the neighbors are concerned that there is too much excavation going on.
e) The Board reviewed an application for renovations at 21 Walnut Farm and determined that the owner should come in for a Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Apartment.
f) The Board reviewed a letter from DTC to the Board of Selectmen dated 10/21/08 concerning Sara Realty's appeal of the Superior Court's decision upholding the Planning Board's determination that CPF&GC had met the sound mitigation conditions. Atty. Ratigan asked if a Memorandum of Law could be submitted to the Supreme Court rather than an appeal brief. The Town would waive the right to present oral arguments but the memorandum is less expensive and this is not a complex case.
The Board agreed that a memorandum was appropriate and that it should be written by Atty. Ratigan.
10. Adjourn: Miles called the meeting adjourned at 9:03 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lisa Babcock
Administrative Assistant
Newton Planning Board
| 
