Fire Code Board of Appeals – Working Meeting

 

Attendees:     Rich Barr, Tom Waechter, Tracy Green, Tom Bracciano, Jay Zimmerschied, David Dressler, Russell Pilshaw, Charles Mestach

 

Meeting was called to Order at 6:30 p.m., August 11, 2004.

 

A quorum was in attendance.

 

Discussion Item #1:  Proposed Blasting Ordinance Modifications.

1.      The Fire Marshal provided an over view of current blasting regulations in the Code of the City of Lawrence and the proposed modifications.

2.      The Fire Marshal described recent experience with blasting in and around the Fox Chase South development, and the proposed amendments to Chapter, Article 2 of the City Code.   (Refer to attached memorandum dated July 21, 2004)

3.      The primary concern identified as problematic was the issue of notification of neighbors on properties adjacent to the blasting activities.  It was determined that certified mail was the best way to insure that all notifications, required by the City Code, were made prior to commencement of  blasting activities.

4.      Independent inspection agencies were discussed as a possible option to insure that blasting activities remain within City Code compliance.  It was determined that special inspections on blasting activities should not be required.

5.      Mr. Russel Pilshaw, with The Pexico Company, recommended to staff that the term “General Liability “ in the City blasting ordinance, be revise to read “General Blasting Liability  Insurance”.  The board will take this under consideration.

6.      The remaining items on the attached Memorandum were discussed by the board and will be given further consideration.

7.      The board requested that an additional meeting be held to review the legalities of the proposed blasting ordinance changes with the City’s legal department.  This meeting was preliminarily set for August 18, 2004 at 4:00 P.M.

 

Discussion Item #2:  International Fire Code Adoption Timetable and Procedure.

 

1.      The board established September 8th, 2004 as the beginning of the review process for the 2003 International Fire Code.

2.      Rich Barr informed the board that the code will be transitioning from the 1997 Uniform Fire Code to the 2003 International Fire Code.

3.      Rich Barr expressed concern that the 2003 IFC is a more lenient code family that the 1997 UBC, and that an extensive review of the proposed code would be required to continue to assure public safety.

 

Action Item #1:  Schedule Public meeting.

 

1.       The meeting to hear public comment, with regard to blasting ordinance changes, will be deferred to September 1st, at 6:30 PM.

 

Action Item #2:  Schedule review of IFC Code

 

2.       Meets for the review of the IFC are proposed to take place bi-weekly until the review process is complete starting on September 8th, 2004.

 

Meeting was adjourned.

 

 

 

Fire Code Board of Appeals

Meeting Minutes

August 25, 2004

 

Meeting held at Fire & Medical Station No. 1

 

Board Members Present-  Tom Waechter, Jay Zimmerschied, Tom Bracciano, Tracy Green, Rich Barr

 

  1. The meeting was called to order at 4:05 pm and there was a quorum present.  Toni Wheeler representing the City’s Legal Counsel was present.
  2. Board members discussed the need for public notification and the preference for having the City use the GIS system to generate a list of owners of property in the 500’ and 1500’ radius and provide this list to the blasting contractor.  The Board also discussed the type of information to be included on the notice.
  3. The need for certified mail with return receipt for the notification of nearby property owners of the intent to blast was discussed.  The question of cost of certified mail was also raised, and whether the City provides certified mail notification for other concerns directed to individuals/households.  City staff explained most notifications on the part of the City are notices in the newspaper.
  4.  There was discussion of the need for a public presentation of information related to the blast plan.  And there was a consideration by the board that neighborhood associations could help to communicate the details of the plan to residents.
  5. The level of insurance identified in the draft ordinance at $2 million was discussed.  A blasting contractor present at the meeting offered that a $5 million limit was more suitable and that the insurance type should be identified as blasting liability insurance.
  6. The Board also discussed the assignment of liability in the case that damage from blasting occurred to nearby property.  It was determined that the only responsible party was the blasting contractors insurance company.  And that the basis of any claim would need to be the pre-blast surveys.
  7. The Board discussed the requirement to place the blast plan on site.  A blasting contractor and blasting consultant objected to the detail made available on site which includes the location of the magazine for storing explosives.  The Board concluded that the site plan should be amended to a more general overview and not include magazine location as this seemed to present a security concern.  While the Federal Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms requires the blast plan be developed with the location and type of explosives identified, the Board felt this information was not suitable for public posting.

 

Next meeting was scheduled for  September 1, 2004 time to be confirmed via e-mail.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 5:45pm

 

 

 

Fire Code Board of Appeals -- Public Meeting

 

Meeting was called to Order at 6:30 p.m., September 1, 2004.

 

Rich Barr provided an overview of the blasting ordinance and proposed changes to the ordinance prior to taking public comment.

 

Public Comment:

Mr. Bob Peckall:  Neighbor in the West Lawrence area where blasting took place this spring/summer.

1.  Indicated that communication with the surrounding neighbors through out the course blasting activities would be desirable.

2.  Requested that all explosive materials be stored per the current ordinance, the appropriate distance from any adjacent structures.

3.  Bob further requested that the board consider not allowing blasting within the City limits of Lawrence.

4.  Assuming that blasting will remain a viable option in the City Limits, any costs, liablitiy,  geotechinical survey, etc., Bob indicated should be the responsiblitiy of the developer.

 

Mr. Dan Crocus:  Neighbor in the West Lawrence area where blasting took place this spring/summer.

1.      Mr. Crocus presented a response letter to his review of the current blasting ordinance for the City of Lawrence.

2.      The letter and his concerns listed within were heard by the board.  See attached letter.

 

Mr. David Dressler:  Blasting Vibration Consultant

1.      Provided thorough description of the requirements for acquiring and performing blasting under the current City ordinance.

2.      Indicated that Kansas One Call is the current method for informing utility companies of proposed blasting activities near their lines, pipes, etc.

3.      Described the blasting monitoring process, and indicated that the seismic equipment that is used to measure blasting must be recalibrated yearly, but there is not regulation in place to require this maintenance, it is only recommended.

4.      Mr. Dressler indicated that the City of Lawrence blasting regulation are as stringent or more so than a number of surrounding municipalities.

 

Mr. Russ Pilshaw:  Blasting contractor.

1.      Recommended that the City Blasting Ordinance be revised to require blasting contractors to provide Blasting Liability insurance in lieu of the specified General Liablitiy insurance.

 

Further discussion lead to the public requesting that the board consider increasing the amount of  Blasting Liability insurance to a larger number, or be dependent upon the value of properties within the effected areas adjacent to blasting activities.

 

Further discussion lead to the public requesting that written notification of the proposed blasting be provided to each potentially effected utility company, by the blasting contractor, not permitting a single call to Kansas One-Call for further information distribution.

 

End of Public Comment.

 

Tom Waechter indicated that seeking  further professional advise on the matter of blasting and geotechnical concerns with regard to blasting, from other professionals more directly involved in the process was advisable.  The board agreed to look into this matter.

 

 

 

Fire Code Board of Appeals

Meeting Minutes

October 6, 2004 Meeting held at Lower Level Conference Room

Fire & Medical Station No. 1

Board Members Present- Chairman Tom Waechter, Rich Barr, Pete Eastwood, Jay Zimmerschied, Tom Bracciano, Tracy Green

1.  Chairman Tom Waechter called the meeting to order and made comment that there was assurance of a quorum.

2.  Introduced Don Steeples who presented materials and talked about existing and new technology which could be utilized to potentially aid in determining the need to blast at construction sites. This information was presented to the board as an informational tool to help determine if additional pre-blast investigation could be more beneficial to determining potential scope of blasting requirements on projects.

3.  Reviewed Draft Ordinance with respect to specific concerns of the neighbors of the Fox Chase South development.

·         Definition of utilities as structures and inclusion (or exclusion) of residential services, specifically utilities and appropriate notification procedures, pre-blast survey procedures, etc.

·         Suspension of blasting operations and/or revoking of blasting permit-

Reference: Section 1. Chapter 8, Article 2, Section 8-207.10a; Sec 105.7, line 6; addresses this issue.

·         Notification requirements between residential/commercial and utilities in specifics of response times from receipt of notifications. (20 days for residential/commercial property owners- 10 days for utilities.) And requiring some form of documentation of pre-blast/ post-blast survey acceptance or waiver.

·         Insurance requirements to reflect proper G/L insurance with blasting coverage

·         Records access-what is public and what should be confidential

·         Air blast standards-Ref. N.F.P.A. 495

Rich Barr will consult with City legal and make additional modifications to for the boards review.

Next meeting was scheduled for October 13, 2004 at 4:00 pm.

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned.

 

 

Minutes Fire Code Review Board

Fire Station #1 4:00 p.m.

10/13/04

 

1)     Meeting called to order at 4:15 p.m.  Quorum was assured

 

2)     Review of draft blasting ordinance

 

a)     Amended definition of structure to follow NFPA 495 guidelines

b)     Discussed 7703.6.3 with regards to response of utility to notification.  Added “within receipt” to line 5

c)      7703.9 discussed definition of blasting expert.  “licensed engineer state of Kansas with blasting experience or consultant whose main field of expertise is blasting

d)     Add “verification that utilities were notified” to 7703.10

e)     7701.3.2 discussion of home ownership change requesting another pre-blast survey.  No change

f)       Add NFPA 495 to definitions to describe structure

g)     Discussion of appeals process for 10 day period delay

h)     Discussion of property owner consent to 100 foot blast zone

i)        Add subsurface plan for blasts within 500 ft of structures

 

3)     Next meeting scheduled for 4:00 p.m. Fire Station #1 October 20, 2004

 

4)     Meeting adjourned 6:00 p.m.