PB Minutes 12-03-07

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING – WARRANT DISCUSSION

December 3, 2007

Chairman Peter McNamara c= alled the meeting to order at 7:00= pm.

Secretary Paul Dadak call= ed the roll:

PRESENT:

Peter McNamara, Paul Da= dak, Roger Montbleau, Jason Croteau (arrived after the meeting commenced), Tim Doher= ty, Alternate Joseph Passamonte, Alternate Edward McGlynn, Alternate James McManus, Sel= ectmen Representative Robert Haverty, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Paddy Culbert

Mr. McNamara appointed Mr. Passamonte to vote in Mr. Culbert’s absence. He also appointed Mr. McGlynn to v= ote if Mr. Croteau didn’t arrive.

NEW BUSINESS

Map 23 Lot 8-18 PV Limited Partnership – Old Gage Hill Road So. & Heather Lee Lane – Design Review of Conceptual two lot subdivision. Proposed lot 8-18 to remain “= ;Pine Valley Golf Course”. Proposed = lot 8-18-2 shall be= developed as an Elderly Housing Condominium Community. Twenty eight buildings shall consi= st of single units & six buildings shall be duplex style. Overall would total forty units.

Mr. McNamara explained th= at the plan submission was for ‘conceptual review’ and had not been formally submitted. He said t= he discussion would be non-binding. He said typically a developer would bring a proposal to the Board to address concerns and obtain abutter input.

Mr. Dadak read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons present who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification.

Representing the applicant, Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates and Attorney William M= ason came forward to discuss the conceptual plan. Mr. Zohdi said the site was curren= tly 71 (+/-) acres and they would be taking a portion of the course in the back and subdividing 31 acres from the total. The proposal was for an (upscale) adult community (55+) with 28 single/detached units and 12 would be duplex units. A similar development was located = in Windham, NH; Windham Meadow and Whispering Wind. Mr. Zohdi said the wet= land had been delineated by Jim Gove of Gove Environmental Services. He said they were proposing a water system consisting of two community wells.&= nbsp; He said they would be requesting one wetland/Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) crossing totaling less than 3000SF. He showed the proposed location of= the clubhouse and mailbox. Mr. Zo= hdi said they would be accessing the site from Heather Lee Lane and would provide = an agreement for emergency access through the golf course. He said if the plan moved forward = they would draft a covenant, giving the Town the first option if ever the golf course were to go up for sale or have any other development. He said the owner needed the devel= opment to provide income and get the golf course running.

Since there was only one access being proposed, Mr. McNamara asked how long Heather Lee Lane was and what length was being proposed.&nb= sp; Mr. Zohdi said Heat= her Lee Lane was 1750ft. and the proposed would be 1300ft. He noted they were not proposing a road system, they were proposing a driveway. He reiterated for safety, they wou= ld provide emergency access. Mr. McNamara said the (single) access would be a concern. He asked if there were any present= plans to develop or sell the golf course. Mr. Zohdi answered no. He said his client had an agreement with the golf course that the golf course would have to stay there because of the community being built. If the course were to be sold, the= Town would have the first option. =

Mr. McNamara asked if any waivers or zoning variances would be required. Mr. Zohdi said they didn’t n= eed a variance, but may possibly need some waivers. He said they would request a Speci= al Permit for the dredge and fill being less than 3000SF. Mr. McNamara if there were any oth= er wetland issues on the property. Mr. Zohdi answered no. Mr. McGlynn asked about the wells in the WCD. Mr. Zohdi said they were allowed, per the ordinance.

Mr. Doherty was concerned that the golf course property would be marketed as an elderly housing golf course community when there was already talk about the golf course going bankrupt. M= r. Zohdi said they would be subdividing the land from the golf course. He said his client had an agreemen= t with the course owner that they would keep the golf course for at least the next five years. He reiterated tha= t it would be a separate community subdivided from the golf course.

Mr. Gowan understood that the plan was at the conceptual stage. He asked if Mr. Zohdi was confiden= t that the density would comply with the ordinance requirements for dry land area.= Mr. Zohdi said they had done the calculations and had enough area to put sixty units on the parcel. He said in order to not ‘jam’ the units into the parcel, they reduced the number.

Mr. McNamara said the project was labeled as elderly housing. He questioned if it was 55+ or 62+= . Mr. Zohdi said it was 55+.

Mr. Dadak asked if the paving for the proposed access would be the same as the paving coming off the public street. Mr. Zohdi said it would be 24ft. only. Mr. Dadak questioned how much traf= fic the units would generate. Mr.= Zohdi said he didn’t have that information at this time, but would supply t= he Board (with the formal application) with the number of trips per day.

Mr. McNamara asked if they had reviewed any alternate means of access, other th= an Heather Lee Lane. Mr. Zohdi answered no. He said when Heather Lee Lane was done the owner= of the golf course was contacted and noted the importance of having a right-of= -way for access. Mr. Gowan said the Highway Safety Committee would be very interested in having a second egress= and would provide a recommendation to the Board regarding such.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. John Mackey, 72 Heather Le= e Lane informed the Board that they were concerned, from a neighborhood standpoint, with the addition of forty plus units because there were twenty-three child= ren under the age of sixteen and four pregnant women currently residing on the street. He said they were also concerned with the character and value of the neighborhood. Mr. McNamara said the Board would = follow the criteria in the Elderly Housing Ordinance. He said one of which was that the development couldn’t negatively impact surrounding areas. He said Mr. Zohdi indicated that t= hey proposed an upscale development. He said they would also be looking for adequate screening of the complex; they wouldn’t be allowed to just clear cut the land. Mr. Mackey asked if the applicant = had an idea of the square footage or rough costs for the units. Mr. Zohdi indicated that the price= for the single units in Windham started at $425,000 and went up to $600,000. He said the units would all be over 2200SF. He said the duplexes = (in Windham) started at $250,000, but were actually selling for $350,000.

Mr. McNamara pointed out that the presentation was non-binding and the plan had= not been reviewed by the Town experts. He said the abutters would all be notified when the plan was formally submitted for hearing. He sai= d at this point it was a general presentation so the applicant could get feedback from the Board and abutters as to what the concerns would be.

Mr. Doug Shawver 65 Heather Lee Lane said if the road frontage on Heather Lee Lane was calculated with each house containing 200ft. of frontage the calculation would be closer to 1950ft. versus the testimony of 1750ft. He had concern with the extended l= ength of road and the increased traffic due to the number of homes being added to= the area. Mr. McNamara said the t= raffic would be reviewed. He said typically with a 55+ development there seemed to be less traffic than with a normal residential development. He asked if road width would be the same as Heather Lee Lane. Mr. Zohdi said they were proposing= a 24ft. paved area. He said they would have a sidewalk which would make the road wider. Mr. Shawver said with the addition= of the units, it would increase the number of dwellings from the current seventeen houses to fifty seven units. = He said the regulation showed thirty-six.&nbs= p; Mr. McNamara said the difficulty with that was the regulation pertai= ned to a public roadway and the proposed was a private roadway. He said the concerned remained abo= ut length and the one entrance/exit. Mr. Shawver asked what frontage a private road needed. Mr. Zohdi said they only needed 50ft. Mr. Go= wan said in the section of zoning (Article IX) indicated that 200ft. of frontage was not required. He explaine= d to the public/abutters how the application process was handled. Mr. Shawver said there was a drain= pipe (6” diameter) that drained many of the neighborhood’s back lots= and went through the golf course. He believed Mr. Gowan had a discussion with the golf course owner that the pipe had been there for 50-60 years and was ‘grandfathered’. He said he was concerned with addi= tional runoff due to construction. M= r. McNamara said the rule was that the post-development runoff could not exceed the pre-development runoff. H= e said recently there were instances that Board had mandated that the runoff be le= ss than it had been. He said the= Board’s engineering firm would review the plans once they were formally submitted. = Mr. Shawver informed that the sight line when existing = Heather Lee Lane onto Old Gage Hill Road was not good and= asked that something be done if traffic was going to be increased. Mr. McNamara said it would be revi= ewed. Mr. Gowan suggested consulting wit= h the abutter that had been present for past improvements because they might be a= ble to provide the Board with some history.&nb= sp; He wasn’t present at this time.

Mr. Doherty commented that the subdivision was for a two-lot subdivision, not a forty-lot subdivision. He sai= d the frontage would be on Heath= er Lee Lane. Mr. Zohdi said they were subdividing the golf course into two lots; one for a future 40-unit adult community and the other being the golf course. =

Mr. Dadak questioned if there was anything involved with this subdivision pertaining to trail systems or wildlife corridors. Mr. Zohdi said currently the plan = was preliminary, but if they were to move forward he was sure the Board would a= sk for a wildlife study and traffic counts (and possibly a full study). He said he would be glad to work w= ith Mr. Gowan to get those done. = Mr. McNamara assumed that there would be a proposed trail system since the development was being built next to the golf course.

Mr. Gowan said he spoke with someone involved with the golf course and believed they planned on having the existing golf cart path link to the proposed development. Mr. Zohdi discus= sed one desire of the group that owned the parcel was to do something different with the pathway such as have it linked around the back of the units. He told them during the process th= ey would request input from the Board and their engineers. He said they would like to have a = trail system and had an agreement with the golf course to connect to their existi= ng trails. He said he would prov= ide that information to the Board.

Mr. Michael Croatti, 64 Heathe= r Lee Lane wanted to know what study or impact would= be done in the event that blasting had to be done. He wanted to know what recourse ab= utters had in the event their slabs or foundations were cracked or broken in the process. Mr. Zohdi said like = any other project, his client would send a crew, survey all the foundations and= get information regarding the individual wells for water quality and quantity.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said they were fully insured and would provide the Town with the certificate of insurance and liability. He said the abutters would receive= the results at the beginning of the process and at the end if there were any disputes they would be reviewed. He said during his time of working in the Town for the past twenty-eight years= he couldn’t recall any issues with blasting. Mr. McNamara asked if any blasting= would be done, and if so to what extent. Mr. Zohdi believed there would be minimum blasting on the site. He said when the Board walked the s= ite they would see the topography and where the road would be laid out. Mr. Croatti wanted to know if any = study would be done regarding water table to determine what net affects the abutt= ers might encounter. Mr. McNamara= asked if anyone in the neighborhood had a problem with water. Mr. Croatti said once in awhile in= the summer they picked up a lot of sand, it seemed to be okay in the winter. He wanted to know what type of stu= dies would be done. Mr. Zohdi said currently they were proposing a community well system. He described the pump testing/moni= toring process. He said the abutter’s water quality/quantity could not be affected by the proposed system because the State of N= ew Hampshire would not approve it. Mr. Croatti asked if there would b= e a community septic system installed. Mr. Zohdi said they proposed three to four units for one system. He said they were going to try to = get gravity systems versus pump up systems.&nb= sp; He said they would show such in the package provided to the Town. Mr. Croatti didn’t know how = it would all be fit in based on the area being very wet. He was also concerned with the construction equipment going down his street.

Mr. Roy Hebert, 57 Heather Lee= Lane agreed with his neighbor’s concerns.= He questioned what efforts/processes were undertaken to determine th= at Heather Lee Lane was the only way in and out. = Mr. McNamara said anytime a development came forward, the Board and Town’s emergency services were always concerned regarding the egress. Mr. Zohdi said he would take the abutter’s input and research to see if there is anything else they co= uld do. He understood it was the abutter’s desire to not have all the access from Heather Lee Lane. Mr. Hebert said the first choice w= ould be to have no access through Heather Lee Lane.&nbs= p; Mr. Zohdi said that would not happen, but he’d review.

Ms. Alicia Hennessey, 71 Dutto= n Road reviewed portions of the Master Plan. She said the proposed addressed the type of housing needed in Town to get some diversity. She was concerned with the Natural Resource Section and said the area being discuss= ed was known as one of two main wildlife corridors in Town. She felt it was important to keep a certain significant percentage open. She wanted to know the size of the wetland on the property. Mr. Zohdi said he didn’t kno= w the size beyond their property. M= s. Hennessey asked if the Board would walk the site. Mr. McNamara said they wouldn’t walk the site until the plan was submitted. He said if the area was a wildlife corridor an environmental review would be done.

Mr. Mr. Michael Bailey, 19 Hea= ther Lee Lane wanted to know if any of the property was being built on the 100-year flood plain.&n= bsp; Mr. Zohdi said they were tying their topography to FEMA elevation. H= e said if there was a 100-foot flood plain, they would not build on it. Mr. Bailey said he agreed with the comments already made by his neighbors.

Ms. Debbie Croatti, 64 Heather= Lee Lane agreed with her neighbor’s comments. She noted that on t= he corner of Heather Lee Lane= and Old Gage Hill Road Sou= th there was a bus stop where children were dropped off and picked up. She said there was a lot of traffi= c in the area and wanted consideration given to the time of day the traffic study was done. Ms. Croatti said she recently was seeking 55+ housing for her grandparents and had reviewed both= of the developments. The housing prices at Whispering Winds ranged from $220,000 - $240,000 and those homes = were not consistent with the homes on Heather Lee Lane.&nbs= p; Ms. Croatti said the Meadows was a beautiful housing development with the price starting at $379,000. She felt the beginning prices they paid for their homes should be reviewed. She said she searched for 55+ developments in Salem, Windham and Pelham and the highest pric= e was approximately $300,000. She s= aid the development next to Rite Aid would be in the low $300,000. She said the other 55+ communities= were looking to downsize. Mr. McNa= mara said there was one development approved by the Board last year that would h= ave prices substantially higher than $300,000.= Mr. Gowan said the ‘market’ wasn’t the Board’= ;s purview. He said of the few developments that had been approved, one was actively under construction and the other was doing foundation work.

Attorney Mason said there would be a middle ground with what takes place in the community. He said they had t= o be affordable, but yet neighbors want to make sure the units are compatible wi= th their homes. He said the unit= s were typically for those that are downsizing.&n= bsp; He noted that the Whispering Winds units were attached; the proposed would be detached units. He s= aid they were more than willing to discuss the issues important to the applicant and the abutters. Mr. McNamar= a said the Board would request an artist rendering to be sure what they were approving.

Mr. Croteau arrived.

Mr. Zohdi said he would take the abutter’s and the Board’s concern = and keep working with Mr. Gowan and within a month or so would submit a plan. He understood that the wildlife was important to the Board and would also provide a traffic count.

Mr. Gowan said the subdivision would have to be submitted. Mr. Zohdi said he would submit the subdivision in the morning. <= /p>

Mr. McNamara discussed the importance of abutters being present and providing input.

Mr. Gowan noted when the two-lot subdivision was submitted, the abutters would = be notified of such. He said the two-lot subdivision would be a separate plan from the housing development.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. Doherty asked if the connectivity issue would be taken ‘off the table’ if the plan was brought forward as a private road. He wanted to know if Heather Lee Lane would remain a cul-de-sac/dead end. Mr. Gowa= n was unsure if interconnectivity with another road was a likely alternative, giv= en the vast wetland and existing golf course.= He said it would be up to the applicant to review.

Mr. Montbleau said it was a plus to have an upscale elderly housing because it would have a very low impact on the Town.&= nbsp; He said projects like the proposed helped the tax situation in Town.= Attorney Mason said the sale price= and value of the elderly housing didn’t make a difference, the net result would be a cash flow gain to the community. Mr. McNamara disagreed and went on= to say that the nature of the development would have a direct impact on the residents which is one of the criteria for which it would be reviewed.

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 100ft.x40ft. Concrete Batch Plant. <= /u>

Mr. McNamara said the pla= n had been before the Board on several occasions over the past several months. He said a site walk had been conducted. He said at the last meeting the Board had asked the applicant to address/resolve several items.=

Mr. Dan Blaize of TFMoran= and Mr. David Bissonette of Redimix Company met with the Board to review the plan.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Blaize said they received Stantec’s (Board’s engineering review company) latest comments = and had spoken with Mr. Dick Hertrich (Stantec) regarding such. He said they were down to just a c= ouple minor comments that were geared around inquiries made by Dracut, MA.

Mr. McNamara asked that t= he traffic/jug handle be addressed. Mr. Blai= ze said Stantec’s letter had returned favorable in terms of the traffic = and what they had presented. The overall the numbers being proposed would have minimal impact to Route 38. Mr. Blaize said there were three questions that Stantec had asked them to address. One question was the jug handle an= d they discussed making one lane wider. Mr. Blaize showed the Board the overall plant and the jug handle area. He explained the traffic pattern and how the cue area for the trucks was designed. He said one issue was truck stacki= ng and showed how the lanes could be modified to ease the traffic pattern. Mr. McNamara questioned how many t= rucks were lined up presently. Mr. = Blaize said they could hold approximately a dozen. Mr. McNamara asked for an explanat= ion of the signage and reference markings. Mr. Blaize said the site contained an existing operation. They proposed signage to direct traffic/deliveries for the Redimix plant.&= nbsp; With regard to adding more signage, Mr. Blaize said the people that = came to the site were familiar with it because they were local haulers. There was further discussion regar= ding the traffic pattern.

Mr. McNamara read aloud t= he comments regarding the traffic analysis submitted to the Board from Stantec.

Mr. Dick Hertrich of Stan= tec discussed the comments that were submitted. He noted that the traffic engineer was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Hertrich said th= ey met with the applicant in October and reviewed the scope of what Stantec was as= king them to do and to get information on the existing gravel operation and how = it would coincide with the batch plant. He believed some minimal signage may help direct trucks. Mr. Hertrich said he wanted to run= the applicant’s responses by Stantec’s traffic engineer, but it sou= nded like the applicant had addressed the comments and had a better understandin= g of what they wanted to do on the site.

Mr. Montbleau said a surv= ey had been done a few years ago in Town to find out the issues that people were concerned with. He said one o= f the top issues was to maintain the rural ambiance of the Town, which was one of= the highlights of the Master Plan. He felt the applicant had submitted a plan that was palatable to the Board and= had done everything asked of them. He said it looked like the proposed would fit on the site and they would be a = good neighbor. Mr. Montbleau belie= ved the Board was having a hard time with the aspect of creating a higher densi= ty of the specific equipment moving through Route 38. He didn’t feel the proposed = plan was in the spirit and intent of what the people of Pelham where looking to = do.

Mr. Montbleau asked if th= ere would be ninety trucks brought in each day. Mr. Bissonette said they would have ninety vehicle trips. He said= the operation was moderately sized. He said based on the site, its history and activity, the proposed would be a modest increase to what was already on site. Mr. Montbleau agreed, but had a pr= oblem with the type of vehicles. He= said those vehicles would not only be at the plant, but would be running through= the Town’s intersections, stop signs and back streets to get to the other locations. Mr. Bissonette sai= d if deliveries were being made outside the Town, they would basically be travel= ing down Route 38. He said if they weren’t making the concrete, someone else would and that specific tra= ffic wouldn’t be eliminated. Mr. Montbleau said the applicant had done a great job, but still had a hard time with the proposal because he felt it was not in the spirit and intent of wh= at the people wanted. He believe= d the site had enough activity and didn’t want to see it expand. He complimented how hard the appli= cant had worked. He didn’t t= hink the plant itself would cause a problem, but he was concerned with the vehic= les being brought to the streets. Mr. Bissonette discussed the nature of concrete and the need for it to be locat= ed within certain proximity of the market.

Mr. Doherty discussed the= fact that the trucks would be coming though Town either from the proposed plant,= or from another based on development that was happening in Town and the surrounding. He felt having t= he plant in Town provided better control.&nbs= p;

Mr. Gowan advised the Boa= rd to focus on the recommendations made by Stantec. He said they had done three review= s and the Board had conducted a site walk. He felt it was time for a decision to be rendered. He suggested that Mr. Hertrich rev= iew the remaining issues involving Board action (mostly the waivers). He said another item would be to r= eview the response to the Fire Department request.

Mr. McNamara read aloud a= letter received today from Attorney E. Tupper Kinder who had previously sent the B= oard correspondence regarding the proposed project. The letter outlined the concerns of surrounding abutters specifically that the analysis hadn’t considered= the impact of the combination of the asphalt and concrete plant at their peak levels of operation. The attorney’s clients had noticed an increase in activity at the asphalt= plant over the last month as it readied for shut down. It was difficult for them to see h= ow the high level of activity of a concrete plant could be incorporated into the current traffic circumstance without significant safety problems on the busy state highway. Recent photogr= aphs of the site were attached that demonstrated the high level of activity associated with the asphalt plant at this time of year.

Mr. McNamara said it seem= ed that most of the concerns listed in the Stantec letter of November 28, 2007 had been addressed. Mr. Hertrich said = that was correct. Mr. McNamara ask= ed if there were any concerns that had not been addressed, or that he had problems with. Mr. Hertrich said there= were a couple of issues that the Town of Dracut, MA has raised that the applicant had agreed to do. He said the applicant’s response letter indicated that they would do them; Stantec suggested that it be noted on the plan.&nb= sp; Mr. Hertrich said the questions regarding the traffic circulation wi= thin jug handle were the only things that was left other than the waivers. Mr. Blaize discussed a couple of t= he issues with the sediment dredge from the quarry settlement pond, which was = part of Keating’s on-going operation.&nbs= p; He said they would be willing to add a note to the plan regarding the materials from the wash-out basin being used in road base material. Mr. Hertrich didn’t feel tha= t the Board had any jurisdiction regarding the settling ponds in the quarry, but = felt they could comment regarding washing of the tank. Mr. McNamara asked about the comme= nt regarding dust control (sweeping on Route 38). Mr. Blaize said that was an on-goi= ng operation of Keating. The swe= eping went through the jug handle and up to the Mobil station; that activity would continue. Mr. McNamara questi= oned the actions regarding the inspection of the boundary fence along Coburn Avenue. Mr. Blaize said the fence was requ= ired for the quarry operation. He = said they could put a note on the plan and commented that annual inspection was required as part of their permit. Mr. McNamara confirmed that the trucks wouldn’t use Cross Road in Dracut, MA unless making local deliveries. Mr. Blaize said a note would be added to the plan accordingly. He said they had made that representation to the Town several times.&= nbsp;

Mr. McNamara asked if the= re were other outstanding items or points of contention. Mr. Hertrich said there wasn’= ;t. He said they would have to review = the applicant’s responses to the traffic circulation issues; there were no other outstanding items. Mr. = Blaize called the Board’s attention to the photos attached to the letter submitted by Attorney Kinder which he said demonstrated what they had said regarding the truck cue area.

Mr. Dadak questioned the reference in Mr. Gowan’s recommendations that the Planning Board revi= ew the Fire Chief’s letter and what they would propose as a contribution. Mr. Gowan said = the Fire Chief had submitted a recommendation.

Mr. McNamara asked if Mr. Hertrich was satisfied with the applicant’s reason for not needing the fourth lane. Mr. Hertrich sai= d he would like to have their traffic person review it, but it sounded as though= the applicant had provided enough vehicle stacking/cuing area.

The Board then reviewed t= he Fire Chief’s recommendation. Mr. Gowan said the Fire Chief had written him a non-specific memo suggesting th= at he had no confined space equipment or training for his men to rescue somebo= dy if someone were to somehow fall into the silo area of the proposed structure. He asked the Chief= to be more specific with what would be needed in terms of equipment; the Chief th= en submitted the letter of recommendation.&nb= sp; He said he shared the letter with the applicant and their engineer.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. McNamara read the letter aloud= which was titled Cost Breakdown for confined space rescue.

Mr. Haverty questioned ho= w many similar plants Mr. Blaize had built. = Mr. Blaize said he didn’t build the plants. Mr. Haverty asked how many such pl= ants Mr. Bissonette had constructed like the proposed. Mr. Bissonette said he had direct involvement in five such plants in his twenty-five years in the business. Mr. Haverty asked if the Fire Chief’s request was unusual. Mr. Bissonette said he had never seen it. Mr. Haverty asked if it was common practice. Mr. Gowan said Pelh= am had not built any concrete batch plants or seen any built. In defense of the Fire Chief, Mr. = Gowan said he asked the Chief to be specific about his concern for not having equipment or training for confined space rescue. He said it would be the Town’= ;s Fire Department that would be responding.&= nbsp; He said he advised the applicant to consider a reasonable voluntary exaction towards equipment (not focusing on overtime and training). Mr. Haverty asked if the Board cou= ld discuss the points with the Fire Chief at a later date. He said it was unfortunate that the Chief was not available for comment at the meeting. Mr. Bissonette said he didn’= t do confined space entries into concrete plants. He said they did confined space en= tries into the mixer drum once or twice per year, but that would be done off-site= at maintenance facilities. He sa= id there were no working parts to the silo and they didn’t go into it. Mr. Dadak believed the Fire Chief = was informing that he didn’t have the capability or equipment to respond = if the proposed site had an emergency. He understood from Mr. Bissonette that they didn’t go into the silos and if they needed work done they would hire someone to do it. Mr. Bissonette said there was no n= eed to go into the silo. He said in = terms of working equipment, those repairs would be done externally. Mr. Dadak confirmed with Mr. Bisso= nette that there would be no reason to ever enter the confined space. Mr. Bissonette said there wasn’t.

Mr. McNamara asked if the= Fire Chief’s listing of equipment and man hours was specific to confined s= pace rescue. Mr. Gowan understood = it to be specific to confined space rescue. He suggested adding a note to the plan indicating that there would b= e no cleaning or confined space entry of the cement trucks on site and there wou= ld never be personnel inside the silo. Mr. Bissonette didn’t have a problem adding a note indicating such; he felt it was reasonable.

Mr. Haverty pointed out t= hat the intersections and roads in Town that would shoulder the burden would be Bridge Street, Main Street= (over Beaver Brook) and the center of Town. Mr. Blaize said if concrete had to be delivered in those locations, = it would either be one of Mr. Bissonette’s trucks, or somebody else going. He said the only reaso= n for one of the concrete trucks to be on the road would be for a local delivery.= There was further discussion regar= ding the direction of truck traffic.

Mr. Dadak indicated there= were four waivers requested and each had been accepted for consideration. The Board then reviewed the waivers.

MOTION:

(Doherty/Passamonte) To= approve the waiver to Subdivision Section 248-34 – drainage.

VOTE: