PB Minutes 07-16-07

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

July 16, 2007

The Chairman Peter McNama= ra called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.

Mr. McNamara then called = the roll:

PRESENT:

Peter McNamara, Jason C= roteau, Tim Doherty, Alternate James McManus, Alternate Edward McGlynn, Alternate Joseph Passamonte, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Paddy Culbert, Paul Dad= ak, Roger Montbleau, Selectmen Representative Robert Haverty

Mr. McNamara appointed Mr. McManus, Mr. McGlynn and Mr. Passamonte to vote.

OLD BUSINESS

Map 41 Lot 6-126 <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Nashua Redimix = 211; Bridge Street (Route 38) – Site Plan Review of Proposed 100’x40’ Concre= te Batch Plant

President of Redimix Comp= anies David Bissonnette, President of Keating Company Jim Reiger, President and Principal Environment= al Consultant for Resource Management Doug Rulin and Dan Blaize of TF Moran met with the Board to discuss the proposed plan.

Mr. Blaize said since the= y last met with the Board they had submitted revised plans to Mr. Gowan and a restoration plan. He said the= y had also done noise level readings on June 29, 2007 while the Keating plant (crusher and bituminous plant) was in operation and returned to the site on July 10, 2007 t= o take additional readings.

Mr. Gowan noted that a preliminary review (dated July 16, 2007) had been received and provided to Board members.

Mr. Blaize provided the B= oard with a copy of the presentation document.&= nbsp; It contained information regarding the noise level tests performed on both June 29, 20= 07 and July 10, 200= 7. He said readings were done at three different locations: 1) at the entrance driveway adjacent to Bridge Street (Route 38): 2) proper= ty line at Coburn Avenue; and 3) Jericho Road/Shanno= n Circle intersection. He reviewed the decibel levels from the two dates. &n= bsp; Mr. Gowan asked if it was loud enough at the site for OSHA to require any sound protection. Mr. Bis= sonnette said it might; they would address the issue in their safety policy. Mr. Gowan wanted to know if the so= und of a truck revving was dramatically louder up close. Mr. Bissonnette said he took some readings at a plant in Amherst= and noted the decibel level. =

Mr. McNamara asked if lev= els were taken at Jericho Road/Shan= non Circle on July 10, 2007. Mr. Blaize said they didn’t take additional levels at that location because there was no audible difference found with the first readi= ng taken.

Mr. Doherty asked if any of the tru= cks used engine brakes to decrease their speed. Mr. Bissonnette said they didnR= 17;t encourage the use of ‘jake brakes’; they were used in emergency situations. Mr. Doherty asked= if it was possible to do a decibel reading of a truck using the engine brakes. Mr. Blaize shook his head yes.

Mr. McManus asked what ty= pe of truck (old or new model) was used during testing. Mr. Bissonnette said their average= fleet age was 4 years old.

Mr. McGlynn asked what th= e OSHA threshold was for noise readings at the point it would become a concern. Mr. Reiger said they were subject = to both OSHA and MSHA regulations and were regularly tested. He explained how the tests were conducted.

Mr. McManus asked where t= he crushers were located. Mr. Re= iger said the primary crusher was located inside the quarry and the secondary crusher was located behind the asphalt plant. Mr. McManus asked if any sound lev= el was done at Black Oak Lane on the Dracut side. He said they heard the = plant operations. Mr. Reiger said t= hey could run another set of tests in that location.

Mr. Doherty asked if sound readings were done during blasting. Mr. Reiger said they did decibel readings every time they did a blast. Mr. Doherty asked how = the readings compared to the sound of the truck (higher/lower/same). Mr. Reiger said the requirement wa= s to be under 130 decibels; they were around 110-114. Mr. Blaize noted that 100 decibels= was equivalent to a power lawn mower, 50-feet away. Mr. Gowan suggested that the Board= focus on the noise of the new batch plant as opposed to what currently existed. He said most of the plant was loca= ted in Dracut, Ma. He didn’t recall th= em having specific concern regarding noise, it was mainly the concern of Board member Culbert. Mr. McManus asked if= the whole property came under jurisdiction once the site plan was submitted. Mr. McNamara answered no, because = the facility was in existence for several years. He said if there was interaction b= etween the existing facility and the proposed facility, the Board would have jurisdiction. Mr. Gowan said = the Board had authority over the portion of the facility that was in Pelham; if there was a problem with the portion in Dracut, the Board would have to contact Dracut. He felt it was important to that t= he Board focus on the site and what was being proposed. Mr. McNamara noted that the Board received a letter from the Dracut Town Planner requesting that they address some of their concerns, primarily involving traffic.

Mr. Blaize noted that the= Nashua Regional Planning Commission (‘NRPC’) had reviewed the plans and had corresponded with Mr. Gowan. Mr. Gowan said it was NRPC’s opinion that the project was not = of regional impact; however, the Board had the jurisdiction to deem any projec= t as having regional impact.

Mr. Rulin said he had rev= iewed the site and went on to discu= ss the location with the Board. He s= aid based on the topography, the proposed plant would be difficult to see. He then discussed the plant that w= as proposed and how it would operate. <= /span>He explained the water use and quality and believed there was a good system proposed that would not affect quality.&nb= sp; He said the process water discharge was state of the art in the indu= stry which would ‘dove tail’ nicely with the Keating facility. Mr. Rulin explained the plan for r= eturn concrete, which would be done by utilizing the recycling facility at Keating. He then spoke about = the air emissions (process and fugitive). He said the proposed plant would use a central dust collector which = was extremely effective and would capture 99.99% of the dust. Mr. McNamara asked what the percent would amount to over a yearly basis. Mr. Bissonnette had information regarding dust production that he submitted to the Board for review. <= /span>He also included information regarding economic growth. Mr. Rulin discussed the Best Manag= ement Practices proposal for fugitive source emissions. He noted that truck traffic would = be on a paved road. He also noted t= hat the facility would be located in a depressed area surrounded by a natural berm. He discussed other meas= ures such as using sprinklers to cut down on fugitive emissions. He said there would also be gravel= surfacing in the unpaved areas which would cut down on dust. Mr. Rulin said with regard to noise prevention, the site was ideal. He then discussed the proposal for fuel storage. In summary, Mr. Rulin felt the pro= posed facility would have a negligible environmental impact particularly relative= to other Redimix concrete plants.

Mr. McNamara said the Boa= rd had received an e-mail from abutter Tom Hillson. There was testimony at the last me= eting and a concern regarding respirable crystalline silica. Mr. Rulin explained what he knew regarding respirable crystalline silica.&n= bsp; He said it was more of an exposure issue to workers because they wer= e in the immediate area; in his opinion, it was not a significant issue for thos= e at a distance.

Mr. Doherty asked at what= point the employees would have to wear respirators or if it was an issue. Mr. Rulin said crystalline silica = dust was an issue discussed in the concrete industry and people had evaluated it. He didn’= ;t know of one Redimix Concrete Plant in the United States where employees= wore respirators for dust due to that issue.&nb= sp; Mr. Reiger said from the quarry side, they were regulated by MSHA (M= ine Safety Health Administration) and inspected several times per year; employe= es that work in the quarry are hooked up to monitors and tested. He said no one in their facility h= ad to wear any type of breathing apparatus because exposures were low.

Mr. McManus questioned if= the proposed facility would be seen above the tree line. Mr. Blaize discussed the proposed = plan and showed an artist’s rendition that was to scale of the berm elevat= ion and tree line. Mr. McManus as= ked if the sound would carry. Mr. Bl= aize showed where truck access would occur and at what elevation. He said it would be made apparent = when they did a site walk. Mr. Bissonnette noted that they received a variance (December, 2006) for height.

Mr. Gowan said Mr. Culbert contacted him and wanted to have the following questions asked. He said the first question was if = there were any reports regarding runoffs (from the overall site) that the Safety Manager might have access to. Mr. Reiger said he had been associated with the Dracut plant since 1985 and couldn̵= 7;t think of any issues with runoff from their construction or production facil= ity to other areas. Mr. Gowan ask= ed if it would be possible to check records with managers and how it would have b= een mitigated or resolved if there was a question. Mr. Reiger answered yes.

Mr. Reiger said there had= been a question regarding what state regulations the engineer had used so he provi= ded the Board with a copy. Mr. Mc= Namara said the document was provided from S. J. Melany Engineering that summarized the Federal, State and Local Regulations used for the conceptual site design.

Mr. Bissonnette said at t= he last meeting Mr. Culbert had a list of questions (which he summarized) and said = some had been addressed and others were answered with information submitted.

Mr. Dick Hertrich from St= antec (Planning Board’s plan review engineer) came forward and reviewed the technical review letter (dated July 16, 2007) submitted earlier in the day. Mr. Gowan said the applicant = would respond to the questions in writing and Stantec would have the opportunity = to review the responses prior to the next meeting. He said there were a number of ite= ms that were already addressed. =

Mr. McNamara said a lette= r had been received from Attorney E. Tupper Kinder which expressed the concerns of certain neighbors and abutters. In summary their concerns were in connection with traffic, dust control, water= use and noise. The letter also no= ted there was a memo dated January 26, 2007 sent to the Planning Board from Dracut’s Assistant Town Manager containing recommendations that the Board should seriously consider.

Mr. McGlynn asked if a co= ncrete containment was needed for the fuel or propane tanks. Mr. Rulin said the tank had contai= nment because it was ‘double-walled’ and would be on a concrete pad.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said the cradle for the propane= tanks would be on concrete as well. Mr. Gowan said detailed drawings (configuration/valves) should be submitted for= the Fire Department’s review.

Mr. McManus asked if rest= room facilities were being proposed. Mr. Bissonnette said they would use the existing Keating facilities located in = the scale house office. Mr. McMan= us asked if the DOT would review the traffic.= Mr. McNamara said the Board would review the traffic because it was a concern of both Pelham and Dra= cut, Ma. Mr. Gowan said the drivew= ay was in existence. Mr. Blaize said= they had forwarded plans to the DOT, but had not received a response back. They were not proposing any change= s to the existing driveway.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Bill Williams, 16 Shannon Circle said he received a letter from Mr. Reiger and thanked him for the informati= on. He said some of the concerns he br= ought up at the last meeting had been addressed.= He asked if there would be a change in decibel reading in the winter when there was no foliage. He wanted to know what the decibel level was for a truck tailgate slamming and= how much of that noise the abutters could expect. He said it was stated that the hou= rs of operation would be 6am-6pm and questioned if there would be any truck preparation prior to 6am. Mr. Bissonnette said an employee m= ay show up prior to 6am, but there wouldn’t be truck activity until 6am. He noted that concrete mixers didn’t have= tail gates; they were mixers. Mr. Williams wanted to know if the decibel reading would change with the extra truck trips and how the increased traffic would affect the traffic. He ended by asking how the abutter= s knew that the silica wouldn’t have an impact on them and wanted to know if= it would have a different impact on children.=

Attorney Brian Correia, <= st1:Street w:st=3D"on">Shannon Circle (who didn’t practice in New Hampshire) said he submitted a letter for the last meeting because he was unable to attend.&n= bsp; He said his concerns mirrored the other abutter’s concerns. He said he had heard noises coming= from the facility at 4am and didn’t know if they were isolated instances. Mr. Bissonnette said they didnR= 17;t operate at 4am. He said they wouldn’t be sta= rting operations until 6am. He said an employee may arrive at = 5:30am, but there would be = no truck activity until 6am= . Attorney Correia understood how the decibel testing was done and wanted to know if any readings were done withi= n Shannon Circle. Mr. McNamara believed it would be = an appropriate measure at the property line.&= nbsp; Mr. Bissonnette said they measured a few different things; specific = to their operation, they picked the biggest noise generator, which was the tru= ck revving. He said they could g= o back to Shannon Circle and do a reading. Attorney Co= rreia wanted to know if there would be additional noise generated from the loadin= g or cleaning of the trucks. Mr. Bissonnette said the noise generator was the truck revving, which was done = at load time. He said truck wash= out was done at low rev speed. Mr. McNamara said the Board hoped to inspect the proposed site as well as a site while it was in operation; the public would be invited. Attorney Correia was concerned reg= arding dust blowing into their neighborhood especially because there were young children in the neighborhood. He had concerns with the dust abatement on site. He then discussed ground water. He wanted to know if any studies h= ad been done regarding the alkalinity of the water table as water from the site seeped into the ground/water table. He asked if water was drawn from ‘Duck Pond’ for the watering operation. Mr. Reige= r said the watering operation was from water at the bottom of the quarry. He said under the quarry there was approximately 50-100 feet of rock so there wouldn’t be infusion of wa= ter into the ground water. Attorn= ey Correia asked if a plan/schedule had been submitted for the watering schedule. Mr. McNamara said i= t was probably subject to the truck schedule; the Board would review.

Mr. Tom Hillson, 51 Shannon Circle questioned how much dust was generated while trucks were being loaded. Mr. Rulin reviewed the process of = the trucks being loaded and that there would be minimal dust. Mr. Hillson wanted to know about w= ell contamination from run off. M= r. Rulin discussed the storage/containment plans. Mr. Hillson said the concern was w= ith the rock bowl not being self-contained and possible seepage into the ground. He said there had bee= n an issue at one of the other Redimix sites with contamination at a concrete ba= tch facility. Mr. Bissonnette wasn’t aware of any site involved in well contamination. Mr. Hillson said he could provide information regarding such. M= r. Bissonnette said they had a storm water plan violation with the Department = of Environmental Services in 2000 in Manchester. Mr. Rulin said the incident was st= raight forward and standard; it was a failure to not have the appropriate permit a= nd documentation which was rectified by obtaining such and practicing Best Management Practices.

Mr. Doherty asked if the = storm water in the pit was regularly tested.&nbs= p; Mr. Reiger said DES and the state of Ma. required them to conduct regular water tests on site; everything was on file. He said mainly it was rainfall and= snow melt. Mr. McManus asked if the applicant would submit a design for the filtration system for the next meeting. Mr. Bissonnette said= they had a construction document that showed the design.

Mr. McNamara suggested th= at the Board schedule a site walk. The Board discussed the location and date they would review. A site walk was scheduled for Ju= ly 28, 2007 beginning at 8am a= t the Pelham facility.

Mr. Blaize discussed the = proposed reclamation plan and explained that it was based upon sound land management practices and represented a mix of uses that might be consistent with that corridor in twenty to twenty-five years.&n= bsp;

The plan was date specifi= ed to August 20, 2007= .

MINUTES REVIEW

July = 2, 2007 – deferred.

REQUEST FOR NON-PUBLIC SESSION

MOTION:

(Croteau/Doherty) Reque= st for a non-public session per RSA 91-A:3,II,e (legal)

ROLL CALL:

Peter McNamara-Yes, Jas= on Croteau-Yes, Tim Doherty-Yes, Alternate James McManus-Yes, Alternate Edwa= rd McGlynn-Yes, Alternate Joseph Passamonte-Yes

-------------------------= ----------------------------------------------------------------------

MOTION:

(McGlynn/Doherty) To ad= journ the public session.

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carried. =

The public meeting was ad= journed at approximately 9:00 pm; the Board then entered into non-public session.

&n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; Respectfully submitted,

Charity A. L. Willis

&n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; Recording Secretary