Good afternoon and welcome to the August 3rd, 2026 meeting of the Chattam Board of Health. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 29th, 2023 signing of the acts of 2023 extending certain COVID 19 measures
adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law general laws chapter 3A section 20 until June 30th, 2027. This meeting of the Chattam Board of Health is being conducted in person and via
remote participation. Please note this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled and on demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device. If anyone else is recording this meeting, including the use of AI note-taking apps, please notify the chair. Every
effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided in the order. A reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling the phone number 1508-9454410 conference ID 841496475
pound or join the meeting online via Microsoft teams through the link in the posted agenda. While this is a live broadcast and simal cast on Chattam TV Xfinity channel 1072, despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide
real-time access. We will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible. Now, I will turn the meeting over to our chair, Carol Boyce. >> It should be the policy of this board. It should be the policy of this board to
conduct its meetings under the open meeting law so as to encourage public participation whenever time permits and as part of the agenda item discussions. And we'll take attendance.
When I call your name, say you're here. Ron Wisher, >> present. >> Joanna Kale, >> present. >> Um Griffin Lloyd, >> present. Carol Gordon >> present. >> Um Michelle Kleinoff >> present.
>> And Burton Seagal >> I am here. >> Okay. So we have a quorum. Uh we have three items on our agenda today. Um but we will be limiting speakers to a
five minute per speaker. The first item is a variance request from nitrogen loading regulation for Diego Bevalone 137 Middle Road. Is there anyone here to
present? Is there anyone online? No, >> I don't see anyone online. If um the board wants, I could read my memo that was um written for this or if no one shows up, it could be continued to the next
hearing. >> Should we just continue it since no one is here? >> I think so. >> Yes. >> Do we have to vote on that? >> Yes. >> All right. Should we take a vote to just continue it? And do I hear a motion?
>> I'll make a motion >> and a second. >> I'll second. >> Okay. And when I call your name, vote. Uh, Ron, >> uh, approve. >> Joanna, >> yes. >> Lloyd, >> approve. >> Carol, >> approve. >> Okay. So, we'll continue it to a future
meeting. >> Um, did we want to say to the next um scheduled meeting, I'm sorry. Um, which would be >> 17th, >> August 17th. >> August 17th at 4 p.m. >> All right. So we'll continue it till then.
>> Okay. Very good. Thank you. >> All right. And the next item on is a discussion on the airport unlettered fuel and flight noise. And I think we have um
the airport commission, Hunley Harrison, and Tim Howard, the airport manager. if you'd like to get up and do your presentation. Good afternoon. I'm Huntley Harrison for those of you
who may not know and this is Tim Howard. >> Hello. >> Airport manager. Uh I don't really have a presentation. The presentation uh essentially was the in the in your packet. Uh, so we're here to answer any
questions you might have on what I sent. >> Okay. >> I can go ahead and explain some things if you want me to just jump in, but uh I thought perhaps there'd be some questions. >> Do we have any questions, Lloyd?
>> I do. I do have a question. I've got uh I've got a few potential questions actually. Um >> that's fine. The first question I had was uh does airport commission or manager collect any quantitative noise data currently um whether it be decibel
levels um operation frequency uh operation frequency over residential areas or time of day patterns or um is any of that data available and has been shared with the health department? >> No. >> Okay. Okay.
>> Um >> I will add that pretty much all the flights into and out of the airport are over residential areas. Um so that pretty much all of them. >> Um but as far as noise tracking, no we there's nothing like that. >> Okay. Do you mind if I ask a second question? >> No, go right ahead.
>> Um did the airport um provide leted fuel or unleted fuel in the year of 2022? and and moving forward, how is that going to govern the implementation of non-led fuel for airplanes?
>> So to answer your question, yes, the uh current fuel used at the airport, it's called 100 low letter A gas, has been in use since basically World War II. That's when the fuel was developed. Um all piston power, that's nonjet um aircraft use that fuel currently. Um certainly
there has been various initiatives over the years to try and remove that fuel to convert it to an unleted fuel just like they did with auto gas years and years ago. Um unfortunately the uh amount of hundrolled so sold in the United States
is a third of 1% of the overall fuel sales in the US and it makes it a very small target for both the government manufacturers and regulators to go after because there's so many other things that are larger pollutants to so so over
time that has sorted through and those of us in the aviation industry you know are at we want the unled fuel. We want to have unled fuel at Chattam Airport. The issue is there isn't anything what they call a drop in replaceable fuel right now that's been developed and approved by the various government
regulatory bodies, the FAA, industry standards, ASM, uh to provide a suitable replacement for that that fuel. So currently the uh the FA and the EPA have gotten together and they put a mandate together to get rid
of unled fuel by 2030. Now, that's kind of a difficult uh target. Uh there's a lot of industry and government problems with that. And again, the the fuel for the direct replacement of that, there isn't one right now. There's some air fuels out
there that are attempting to be that fuel that are competing. Um there's a lot of favoritism and politics involved in that process. But at the highest level, it's quite frankly a mess. Um, but back to what we can control here at the Chattam Airport, both the commission, the management and and the
FBO, we would very much like to have the unled fuel present as soon as it's available and legal. Unfortunately, right now, that's not the case. Um, like I said, there are a couple fuels out there that have been pushed out at some select airports uh in the middle part and western part of the country to try
to push this initiative forward. Unfortunately, they've met with a lot of problems and resistance. Um, and matter of fact, it got so bad that the FAA mandated that the 100 lowled fuel, the one that we currently use today, uh, is available at all airports that take, uh,
government and state funds through the grant assurances until 2030 to make sure that the, uh, the industry isn't crippled because of lack of fuel. So, uh, the commission has recently, uh, started developing their changeover plan
to unled fuel. Unfortunately, uh, it's really hard to plan that when we don't know what the fuel is going to be, the availability, and how that all works cuz potentially there could be three different fuels out there and have to be kept in separate tanks. And transportation companies right now
aren't willing to haul much, if any of it, because of the uh, certifications involved with the fuel that has to come from the government. So, um, you know, as far as us here at the China Report, we want to do that. We'll switch over tomorrow if we can get it, but right now we can't even get it.
>> Understood. And my only followup is to um the board and uh the health department and also to the airport commission um if you know but since I respect the fact that the transition is going to be difficult have we tracked
the impact of the leaded fuel o over the residential areas over the community or around the airport in general at all in the past or has that been something we've documented Is there data on that or >> we have not done a study on that? The uh
last time this that I have record of that a study was done of airports in the area, Nantucket airport, which is the second busiest airport in the state, uh especially during the summer. Uh
they did a lead emissions study. This was back early 2000s, I believe. I was looking for my document on it to bring it in, but I couldn't find it. Uh, but they were
like a 01 on the scale. I mean, it hardly, even with all the traffic they had, it hardly registered. And we have certainly a lot less traffic than that. So, you know, to me based on that, it it's negligible.
Uh I think there's a lot of lot of scary talk going around about how and I I'm not arguing that lead's bad. I mean, it is. But the the quantities that we have to deal with at the airport
are so minimal and so you know sporadic in terms of location on the airport where they might be especially in the runup areas which are away from people. Uh and the airplanes that are parked uh near the
picnic area outside of hangar B. uh when those airplanes start up, they're there for maybe 30 seconds or more, maybe not not more than that. Uh and then off they go. So, you know, the the exposure at that point is uh is is probably minimal.
Now, have we done a study? No. Uh studies like that cost a lot of money and the airport commission doesn't have a lot of money to do that. And the same with a noise study. Those are extremely expensive and uh it's uh what right now
what we're doing is going along with federal regulations and abiding by the federal regulations as best we can. We have our voluntary noise abatement program. I think in your package you have our brochure uh and most most of
the pilots I would say the good majority of them are uh abiding by that. Uh yes, there are people who come in early or leave late from time to time. Uh I equate that to people on the road. You
have speeders from time to time and who violate, you know, speeding regulations. Now we we we ours is not regulatory and it can't be. Uh so what we've done with this is to try to put out some guidelines
for the pilots who use the airport. Uh certainly the local ones they know and uh transient pilots uh whenever they come in we try to give them a copy of this. Uh it's on our website and pilots
are required to uh avail themselves of all pertinent information regarding any flight they take. And part of that would be looking up our airport and finding out what our rules and regulations are or at least what our programs are, voluntary programs. So, uh, as I said,
we're we're doing the best we can. Um, the piece that I gave you on on local governance, uh, I think you received something today from Mr. Bixby. Excuse me. Before you do
before you do that because I imagine there'll be a bit of discussion. >> You want me to stop for a second? >> Just just I'd like to ask a quick question. Sure. >> Going back to the lead issue. >> So which the lead is? >> Oh, lead. Okay. Thank you. >> So it sounds like this is going to be
with us for at least another four years until 2030 when uh hopefully there will be an objective of leadfree fuel available. So, we're going to have to live with it for four years. I think it
would behoove somebody to do an analysis of lead levels to just see whether there really are. I mean, I think your point about Nantucket is well taken. But I think somebody on the other side of that issue might say, "Well, that's
Nantucket. I live in Chadam." So I I think it would really behoove you or somebody to actually do an analysis uh to see whether or not it is an issue or not. You it may be very may well be that we can put the issue to bed and not
have to live with it for another four years. If we find that there's no lead in the air uh or any of the areas where you know tourists might be then there's no issue but failing any kind of data
it's just going to continue to fester for another four years and we'll probably have more meetings like this. Well, I can ask our consultant to see if he would inquire >> and and regarding I mean regarding the cost, I mean people have been testing lead for years,
you know. So I I think the first step might be with your consultant just to get a budget for how much an analysis would really cost and if it is you know u reasonable to go ahead and do it to go
ahead and actually have the analysis done and and as I said it'd be nice to put this to bed. I can do that. >> Just to add, especially if we're thinking about expanding the access to which types of air planes can land there, the larger aircraft. I feel like
that would be another reason to your point, you know. >> Yes. >> Well, they don't use a gas. >> Yeah. That that's a different fuel. >> That's is it leaded or unled? It's unled. Don't forget I said it. >> That's jet fuel. That is not a leted fuel. >> Understood. Forget I said anything. >> Okay. Uh I'd like to say something.
Okay. All right. Uh in the meantime, maybe there were some things that you could do just to help protect the community from the lead. And uh one thing you had mentioned, Huntley, is about uh maybe instead of having the airplanes right next to the picnic tables, maybe they could go back to the
area where the skydiving operations used to pick people up instead of having the planes parked by and starting by the picnic tables. That might be an easy concession. And uh also I think uh the FAA recommended that a sign a warning
sign to parents of uh risk of lead exposure from emissions to children and babies. I think that was recommended by the FAA. And I'm not sure if there if there's a sign at the airport regarding that. And uh maybe that that's also something else that could be done to
protect the community from lead if there is indeed lead. And we don't know how much. So we know that there is some. So we don't know how much. That might be an easy concession as well. >> Could I request the board of health to uh submit wording for that? Proper wording for that.
>> Sure. I mean, we can do that. We can certainly do that. >> It would have to be short. I mean, you know, >> right? >> And then I can ask the DPW to put the sign together. >> Okay. All right. I think I think we could do that, right? I think we could, but >> I guess I would still urge a little bit
of caution with regard to the site >> because in the absence of any data, >> I don't think we want to create a situation where people are frightened to death to get near the airport. I mean, that could have a tremendous impact on hangar B and for no reason.
>> Well, it was recommended by the FAA. So, >> that is not >> Well, a recommendation is a recommendation. And I think, you know, if I was in if I was at JFK or something like that, maybe that might be a worthwhile recommendation. But I just think in the absence of any kind of
information, >> um I again I don't want to create anything that would, as I said, be an unnecessary burden to hanger be. >> Well, I will also look up and see if the FAA recommends that. >> Okay. >> Because I don't I don't know. I I have
not seen that and I don't >> I don't I've never heard of that but we we'll have to look at it. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> But again, we don't want to jeopardize Hangar B's business. We don't want to jeopardize,
>> you know, tourists coming in to watch airplanes. >> No. >> Uh like I said, the wording on the sign has to be very carefully put together if we're in fact going to move that direction. I I think this, you know, this has the potential to be a serious issue. It also
has a potential to be a non-issue, but I think it is it is incumbent upon the board to keep close tabs on it. So, having made the recommendation to do some testing or at least to get a budget for doing some testing,
>> could we not put this back on our agenda for maybe another month or two to revisit that and see how that's coming along? The operative word though is budget. >> I understand. But I mean, you know, we we test we test for potential pollutants
in our drinking water. Why why shouldn't we test for the potential for lead in our environment? So, >> okay. >> Well, perhaps if if it's something that we can't afford, if that's something the board of health could do.
>> Well, I'm willing to chip in. So, >> uh, I think Greg would like to speak. >> Oh, excuse me. >> I didn't even see you there. I'm so quiet. >> Hi there. Greg Burman, your director of natural resources. And I did just want
to make sure the board knew of one of the um, uh, available sources of information. You know, any sign that would potentially come out of the board. um you may want to consider having town council review it just to make sure it
doesn't place the town in any liability and that's part of the town council retainer that's what they're there for >> that makes thank you >> so I'd also u like to talk a little bit about the fly friendly all right sure and uh
>> okay um I know that uh I know we've talked about this before and I was just thinking a little bit of some other places that think a little bit outside the and maybe we could learn from them. Uh there is one airport that does an
after hours operation 10 to 6 10 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. And uh they they say, "Thank you for choosing this airport. We appreciate your business and want to ensure you have the information you need when arriving or departing outside of our standard operating hours." And they have a program that is called Fly Safe,
Fly Quiet. and they talk about uh excuse [clears throat] me, due to the limited staffing during late night hours, I'm not going to read the whole thing, but I'll summarize uh the fueling services is unavailable between 9:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Uh self-s serve remains
available. They have voluntary curfew hours. On your next trip, we ask [clears throat] that you make every effort to observe the quiet hours. Voluntary curfew between 10 and 7 to reduce noise for our community. They have a limited ground service and they tell you about that. They have a ramp
access and that the ramps are closed to all rampside vehicle access. They have crew cars that are unavailable and they have an after hours fee. A $350 fee applies to any aircraft handled by this particular aviation between 10 p.m. and
6 a.m. And then they just talk about how they appreciate the cooperation and commitment to uh to a seamless and considerate airport experience. And if you have any questions, please contact blah blah blah. And uh this is uh it said the fly fly safe fly quiet
initiative is centered around a voluntary curfew aimed at reducing aircraft related noise during quiet hours uh to serve our community. So maybe this >> What airport is that? >> Pardon me. It's an airport out of Florida. >> Naples. >> Yes. And uh
>> it's a huge airport. >> Okay. Well, maybe this is something that could be >> not similar to ours at all. Well, it may not be similar. >> And Naples can get away with $350. >> Well, we don't have to use $350, but perhaps we can learn a little bit from what they're doing and maybe apply some
of it. >> We do have a landing fee, and if a plane comes in after hours, they still have to pay their landing fee. >> Okay. All right. >> So, we And ours totals, what is it? 275. Ours totals 275. >> Okay. Okay. >> And that's that's for any aircraft, any
commercial aircraft over 6,000 lbs. Uh, and any private aircraft that's over 6,000 pounds >> coming in at what time? >> Coming in during our curfew hours. Well, actually during any time. Anytime. >> Anytime. >> Okay. And uh well, also I think it's uh
it's nice when they say fly safe, fly quiet. I think that's kind of a a nice slogan. No matter what size the airport is, it you know, it helps the makes the community feel that you're really trying to to do something. I know that you've been pushing the voluntary flight friendly hours, but maybe there's
something a little bit more that could be done. >> Um, >> maybe we can learn. >> Well, we could we could insert those, you know, fly safe >> words. I don't know if that would make much difference, but >> No, but
>> you know, >> quiet. Lloyd, >> I think this kind of encapsulates that to maybe not to everyone's, >> you know, agreement, but >> we're just wondering. >> I think we've tried to capture it. >> I think you tried to capture. I just
don't know, you know, how well it's working within the community. >> Well, I I I do know that the pilot community, >> local pilots are adhering to it. >> Okay. >> I would say what 99% of the time. I mean, there might be one now and then.
who might have to come in late for whatever reason, weather delay or or you name it. Who knows? >> Yeah, there's emergencies, >> you know, equipment problems. U but the transient pilots who may not avail
themselves of all the pertinent information for the airport, >> they may they don't know if they haven't looked it up. and the the the information is there if they look for it >> and they're supposed to look for it when they go into an airport that they
haven't been to before. >> Um >> Yeah. Yeah. When when they don't, we do our best to track them down and to make them aware of it both via via phone call, email, we've even been mailing the pamphlets to them if we can't get their email off the data we have. So, we have
been tracking that pretty pretty steadily. >> Okay. Do you know how many uh flights come in after say 10 o'clock at night? >> Um in what time period? >> Between the last month I think probably zero.
>> Yeah. >> Over the last six months, >> two or three. >> Okay. >> I I think I would agree with that. I I actually live a couple of blocks from the airport and once in a blue moon and I I'll be out walking our dog late at night. Once in a blue moon I'll hear an
airplane come in at at 10:00, but I think two or three in six months seems about right to me from where I live. >> Yeah. >> And there might be a might be an early arrival, but I think we've we've kind of got a good handle on that with our
charter vendors uh who come in. Uh we've had very few of those. I will say more, but they're dependent on their customer >> and they they have to do what the customer says because they don't want to lose the business.
>> We we've been more effective getting them not to come in late than we have come in early, but we're making progress on the early stuff. >> Um Lloyd, >> I'd like to like mention to just to Greg's point about town council. Um, I I it's I'm under the impression that the
FAA preempts most of what we can control regarding noise. That's just outside the board of health's domain. >> Um, almost entirely, essentially entirely. So, it's I'm not tempted to really discuss or fund
anything related to noise pollution. Personally, I just don't think it's within our ability to do something even if it is found. But I'm I'm not aware of, you know, I'm not town council. So, um I would get an opinion on that, I guess, if we're if we are gonna pursue this further. But I'm not, you know,
it's worth mentioning that >> I think this is this what they're doing for the noise >> and this is what been recommended. Correct. >> Yeah. There there's a limited number of tools we can have to try and limit that
and that this is the best tool that we have available that's legal and accepted. Are there any other questions or >> anything on the uh local governance package part of the package that I sent you?
>> We're b we're bound by a lot of rules and regulations that I think the general public is not aware of uh until you really dig into it and it's it's uh very difficult to dig into it. In fact, if you look at this uh I don't know if you got a printed version of that or it's a
online version, but the online version if you go to if you scroll up just a little bit a little more I'm sorry down. Well, >> all of those things I pointed at,
take a deep dive into each of those topics, and I mean really deep. So, you know, sit back and relax if you're really interested in it. It'll take you into all those regulations, the
environmental process, everything. And it gets complicated. It gets very engineer jargon type text. And uh [clears throat] but taking all of that and and trying to
abide by what all that says is what we tried to do in that brochure. Just encapsulate it down as best we can. Um yeah. Yeah. Do we have any questions online or
no? Are there any further questions? >> Somebody. >> Yes. If you'd like to. >> Before I step down, I just want you to know we are working on it the best we can. I know it doesn't please everybody.
They want us to go faster and doing the best we can. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Hi, it's Carol Bliss, West Cadam. I have to say that Tim and I have been working together, I think, on trying to
figure out what's going on with the fly friendly. And I have a problem that we know there's people that are not following the rules and we need to know who those people are. The other day I called him or emailed him or something
and he had no idea about the two aircraft that I'd seen. So I worry about the communication of the, you know, the statistics that we're using for some of these decisions that we're making. I had another comment. Let me see if I
can come up with it because I hadn't planned on speaking and then I've lost it right now, but I'll think of it and I'll try to come back up. >> Okay. Thank you. [snorts] Good evening, Board of Health. Apollo
Lofrren. Um, I live on Great Hill. um in the absence of an agenda that was on the board to make comments against I didn't come up with the presentation but I did have comments about some of the things it's a little discombobulated now because um the conversation was not um
in a direct line number one I will say to you that with regards to warning the public about um leted gasoline this memorandum from June 19th of 2013 um which came out about even before the EPA 10 years later came with their
endangerment finding. Right on the paper, it says on the back, one of the things that you can do in the interim is to put signage up to warn people that leted gasoline is being used by these airplanes. So, the I can give you a copy
of this um to have it because that came out 12 13 years ago. Um they were worried about it, but it had not gone through the federal register. So a couple of things that um noise and
fuel two different issues. the noise. Yes, it is regulated the things that you can do. But as a resident, I live on Great Hill and so I have a daily relationship with the aircraft that come in and although you cannot regulate
um and make laws of the town, there can be good policies and then the following of policies. The FAA has an advisory circular on the way the path to land in a non-towered airport. It's written right there with signs. This is how you
come in and this is how you go out and you don't start going around the corners. We've had planes come in, even big planes. The big Pilates plane took off the other day and did a big turn around the water towers. They're supposed to go, as I'm correct, 1,000 ft
into the air before they take a turn one way to get out of town, get out of dodge, and then turn. And people don't. And I know that if you're down on the airport, you can't see what is actually happening in the air because of just the
just the topography and where for us is the water towers. But this stuff happens all the time. And so um to report to the airport what we see um we're told that we need to have the call numbers of a plane which if you're underneath it when
it's coming at you, you can't see the call numbers. And so there is a lot of uh people who have no longer um called into the airport because our observations are rejected. As far as doing noise levels, I knew there is a member of our community on the hill who
has done noise um with a with an app. I'm not sure if that information was accepted by the airport. Noise is a designated health
risk there. The um literature on noise, especially for seniors, is as as solid as lead. And I would um urge you to consider that um that it is a public health issue, the
amount of noise that comes. Perhaps you cannot do anything legally, but perhaps you can make a a [snorts] statement about how important it is for the people on the ground to have a safe life. Should the town have built there? No.
Um, definitely not. But this is what we have now. [snorts] When I was on the airport commission, I know that the mandate as a commissioner is to balance the needs of the community with the needs of the airport. And that is something that I think the board of health could help um when I do believe
that the town is going to be initiating um some roundt with the community um and the FAA and the airport that the board of health I would I would urge you to get into um the conversation because it is a huge health issue. The other part
about um unlimited gas has been a concern of mine for 10 years. I brought this up when I was on the commission and I even um made a package for the board of health two years ago,
three years ago, four 2022 maybe >> [snorts] >> um on what is happening with within the government and also within um the uh public for getting lead gasoline here. And with regards to Nucket, sorry for
being disjointed and I'm thinking about comments that were made. With regards to Nantucket, I'm not sure if they have um a similar small plane population. They have jets galore, but they don't burn letted fuel. And as I recall, they their
fly friendly is totally not over residential areas. If you go to the Nantucket airport website, it will show you distinctly where you can't fly because residents live there. What we have here is a majority of the prop the prop plans and some of them do belong to
our town man um airport manager the biplane the uh flight school airplanes and these are right over our heads literally at treetops circling around coming in so it's a different doing a lead study I would I would say
is absolutely called for because these people these planes are literally right over your head you can almost tell what they're wearing ing when they come in and when they come out [snorts] and if they followed the flight path they wouldn't but indeed that's not what happens. Um two years ago the airport
commission actually made a presentation to the board of the health on what was called the white eagle initiative the eagle initiative. Do you remember that presentation? I'm not sure if it's in the files of the board of health, but it was quite thick what they gave to the board of health and what I gave to the
board of health about getting let it fuel before 2030. And um part of part of what they say is that it is an issue of getting everybody to agree what the economic value is. Planes
are going to have to um recalibrate. They're going to have to um have supply chains. Is it economic? Yes. But would you put the economic versus the health of the community when the e when the um FAA and the EPA has come out and said no
lead at at any point is acceptable. And so we have these planes over us spewing lead. [snorts] We do have um two points and then I probably went over my five minutes. I could I would
easily um make more packages for you for all the stuff that we looked at 3 years ago if you would like. Um there is a small air park in Falmouth. Uh the Falmouth air park, does it still provide
UL 94? So we have an airport on this peninsula that supplies unleted UL94 and has for quite a number of years. I know it's a long way to go to Felmouth, but if it's already here and
coming, why is it that we can't make um a consortium to get this fuel to us? There are initiatives all over the country where local towns are working with their airports to kind of fasttrack
the fuel to their areas. And I know that in the Eagle project, um, in the Egyp Eagle project, let me find the P, they said that one of the things that determines who gets unlimited fuel is the mandate of local governments.
If everybody's clamoring on it, then who's going to get it first? The people who are asking for it. and we as people can't ask for it, but you as a board of health could work with the town and the airport to see if there's a way to get a
town mandate. We are looking for unled gasoline. The other question I would have too is uh for the airport since they're here is you know three years ago that you were understood that it was going to be six years before this
fuel is here and what infrastructure has now started another fuel tank. What are you going to need to have there? And what are the discussions that have been made that's going to start that pipeline of infrastructure? And part of the Eagle project was that towns need airports
need to start looking at getting the infrastructure in place so when the hopefully 2030 um the 2030 deadline comes and we're out of out of um lead fuel that we're ready to take it and it isn't [clears throat] now. We have to get it through capital
improvement. >> Excuse me, but um well over five minutes. >> I'm so sorry. >> Well, no, I'm not sorry. But I do there is um a lot of information out. There's one thing I will close with and it's in your package online that says that if we
do not or if we try to regulate um anything at the airport, the FAA will ask for their money back. I have it in writing, not on me right now, but in my house that the FAA will not claw back any funds should
anything unfort happen. Um, if you have any questions, um, Carol Gordon would be able to, uh, give you my email address. I'd be happy to sit down with you and also provide you any of the information that we gave to the board of health a few years back. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Um, I have a question in regards to something that was said if Felmouth has the unlet. Yeah. for um Huntley or >> Yes, ma'am.
>> Um if Felmouth has the unled fuel, why can't Chadam have it? >> The fuel that uh Felmouth Air Park have is called 94 UL and it's made by one of the three manufacturers that are trying to vive for the 100 lowled dropin replacement that everyone's seeking. Uh
unfortunately the 94 UL is only for smaller lower compression engines of which the fleet at most airports is a larger mix. Falmouth air park consists of mainly smaller uh residential uh privately owned aircraft. They don't get any business aircraft there that require
the higher octane fuel. So the 94 is an octane rating just like when you put fuel into your cars. There's the 89, 92, and 98 octane. So the higher performance airplanes require the 100 which 94 is not certified or allowed for. Um also 94
UL if you use it in your aircraft you have to buy a permission from the manufacturer of the fuel to put that in your airplane. Um and Felmouth Air Park as a residential home community um that was something they decided that their their uh resident owners would buy into because they have to you have to pay for
the permission to use that fuel. And it only makes sense if you have a certain number of people that that buy in to do that. And that's what they did. So they had enough residents who were interested in that and they collectively pulled their resources to buy that fuel for those folks. Now does that serve all the airplanes at Forth Park? No. Um mix at
Chattam Airport is much more diverse. Unfortunately, we have those higher performance airplanes that require the other fuel. Um, so if we were to have that at our airport, we a one would have to have buyin from the the base and aircraft in the region that would use it
to make it worth everyone's while. And then two, we'd have to have separate tankage because we're still required to have the 100 lowled under the FA CRT assurance requirement. Um, so the 94 has already basically been trumped by that that same company's uh new product called 100U, which just rolled out a
couple weeks ago, which is supposed to is one of the applicants for the drop-in replacement. Um, so that's why we we don't have it at Chattam Airport. Um, unfortunately, years and years ago, 25 years ago, the airport did have two separate fuel tanks, but they were removed under a state program uh to
reduce hazardous material on site. So that's why it was reduced to one tank. And unfortunately in retrospect that was not a wise move. We should have kept that extra tankage because that would could help us in this conversion process that we're faced with in the next four to you know 3 to four years. Um but
don't get me wrong, no one wants the lead. Um I'd be the first to buy the fuel if we can get it here and get people to buy into it. But right now, the alternatives require um uh the air aircraft owners to buy the rights to to put that fuel in their plane and it has to meet the specifications of their
engines. So there's a lot of weeds on this. I don't want to get into it, but that's that's why. >> Excuse me. So you're excuse Oh, excuse me. >> Do you have a question? >> I do. So you're saying that now we need to get another tank. Is that correct? And are you working towards getting that the tank for
>> depending on what the solution for the dropin replacement is? Yes, that is likely something we would have to have. Um, but we also are looking at the commission has looked at in the past uh tankage for jet fuel because >> part of this equation also isn't just the the leaded fuel. Um, the in some
respects the industry isn't waiting for this. They are finding alternative power plants, excuse me, power plants, turbine engines, diesel engines to replace the the uh leaded gas burning piston engines because they want the conversion sooner. Uh so we may may wind up in 2030 where
the drop in fuel thing is kind of moot because manufacturers have come up with replacement engines that burn diesel or jet fuel and it may all be for not. So uh right now that that whole process uh like Mr. Lkin mentioned before the uh the eagle program and the previous start
there was one called pathy uh which basically was an industry initiative to try and promote alternative fuels in aviation. Uh but again at the highest levels it's a very convoluted mess of politics, money and economics and you know something we don't have a whole lot of control over unfortunately but we we
would like the unled fuel. We would like it sooner rather than later. Um but uh yes if we do go that route some additional infrastructure will be needed but it's awful hard to invest in infrastructure and we don't know what the end winner to this question is going to be. >> So does this apply more to uh to the
larger planes or the smaller planes? Um, as far as the lead fuel, you mean >> as far as the problems here with the getting unled fuel and are we are we looking to more larger planes or we keep >> it's not necessarily larger. Um, the the
large airplanes you see at the Chattam airport are typically turbine powered, but there are higher performance airplanes that use the piston fuels. So some of some of the very light airplanes only require or could use that 94 UL, but the majority of them that use our airport need the 100 as required by
their engine manufacturer and the airframe manufacturer. So basically um we have I would say a third of the fleet that's just based at Chadam requires that that could not use that alternative fuel or maybe even more. Um the transient fleet definitely the 94 would not serve not
even not even half unfortunately. Okay, >> thank you. And Hunt Lee, did you have >> one last thing? >> One last thing. >> When when I was up here before, I just
want to call your attention to when we did the master plan several years ago. Uh the environmental assessment is on our website on the town site. There is a section there on noise uh that they cover. It's uh in in near the
beginning. I don't know the exact page. Uh but that might be something to take a look at with regard to noise. Uh fuel was not part of the discussion in the environmental assessment as I remember u
and I it's a 400page document so it could be in there somewhere. Uh but I I I don't remember that particular item being discussed. Tim, do you remember fuel being No, I don't think so. I don't think so. Uh so, but I do know noise was
in there because noise was the most frequently raised issue when we received comments. So, they did address it and it was addressed by the FAA, not by our consultant. So, that I I would refer you to that uh for noise. That's right.
Right near the beginning. >> Thank you. And I have a question. Are you going to look into the study on the um lead at the airport, the environment? >> I I'll talk to our consultant about it
and find out what it might cost to do a study on something like that. >> Okay. >> And I can get back to you on that. >> Great. >> Yeah. And I can I'm also going to find out about a study on noise. >> Okay. I do know that they would start off with an examination, do some
preliminary work again, data collection on noise and contour levels um and distance from the airport or from the runway where those contour levels are and the decibel levels as it goes out. Um and they usually use a dayight
average uh on those studies uh for decibb uh and they add they add 10 dB for any nighttime type of operation. Um but the study that we had done and we have
documentation on it uh in the master plan in 1986 did a study on noise as part of the master plan and the data is in there. Uh the conclusion at that time was that it
was negligible. Uh and the airport was actually busier in the 80s than it is now. So I would I know Terry Whan sent that to me. You can get it from him if you want to. Uh I think you have to be
an engineer to understand it to a degree. But the the synopsis at the end that the consultant put together basically comes out with a conclusion that there's you know finding of no significant impact. >> This was in 1986.
>> 86. >> 86. Thank you. >> Yeah. And like I said, Terry has the uh the paperwork on it. Okay. >> Thank you. I think that ends our discussion. I think that ends our discussion on the
um airport unlimited fuel and noise. So, we'll move on to our next item, which is the proposed leaf blower noise regulation. >> Excuse me, Carol. Can I just say something? Can before we move on, should we talk about getting more about the
study for lead, maybe make some conditions or something or that we're going to report back in two months or something like this that >> Well, he's going to look into it and get back to us. >> Do we need to to >> make a motion? >> A motion right there. >> Do we need to make a motion? that to
know that it goes back on the agenda. >> We can >> I don't think we need to make a motion. >> No, I think we just add it to a future if we included it. We we'll include it in the minutes and that'll >> right to make sure. >> And you can add it to a future agenda. >> That's right.
>> Okay. [snorts] Um Okay. Okay. Now before we go any further on the leaf blower issue, I wanted to mention that about a year ago this was discussed by the board of health and at
that time it was unanimous vote to leave in place the current noise ordinance and the board felt that it gave more protection to the public than setting
time restrictions. Um, an example would be if a landscaper is there and there are four employees using leaf blowers. If it's between 7 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.,
they're within their rights according to what you had presented. where under the current noise ordinance it there is no time limit. You can call 24/7.
You could call up and complain that they're using four leaf blowers and it's bothering you. It's too loud and the police will respond. Um I just didn't see a reason for changing it.
any comments or >> Well, I'm I guess I'm not quite [cough and clears throat] sure about that. I It just seems to me that having a time regulation just seems to make sense, >> you know? You know, I mean, I I don't
know if I So, you can call up and give a complaint. Is that the same thing as what we're saying or we are? >> Well, I I don't know. I'll I I think you
want to talk about this or >> just drag couple >> of things I wanted to mention. Don't want to dissuade discussion. Uh again, Greg Breman, your director of natural resources. Um, a couple of the things on my mind about the proposed regulation. You know, one kind of the practical
aspect of it. If if this regulation were to go into effect, who is the enforcement authority? Is this going to be our health staff? Because leaf blowers are very often on weekends and mornings and our staff isn't there that
early. Um, so you know, part of that is trying to figure out the logistics about how it may or may not actually go into effect. And I, you know, not to repeat myself, but you know, we we have town council on retainer. You know, one of
the aspects of a new regulation is any potential, dare I say the word, conflict or overlap with some of the other things going on in town. And I wanted to just call the number section 208-18.
You know that that's a town bylaw that deals with noise. My recommendation if this board would like to explore regulation related to noise, just, you know, submit a town council request, put a few questions in there to answer. You
know, I'm not a law not a lawyer myself, so I would be a little hesitant about, you know, saying it can or can't or should or shouldn't, but you know, just just before, you know, signing on the line about a regulation, I I'd recommend just putting it out to town council to
see what their opinion is. >> I I don't have a problem with that. I I I guess the two things that I liked about the regulation that we proposed were, you know, there would be no use on a Sunday or on a holiday. And then I
also like the 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. I mean, if that was formalized, if that was given to all of the landscapers, they would absolutely know that you can't do this on a Sunday. You can't do this on a holiday. you can't do it at 900 PM.
And so I think you're kind of putting them on notice that there is this regulation. I take the point about enforcement. Yeah, that's difficult. But right now, we just say the current >> Do you have a lot of complaints at 9:00 p.m. of landscapers using leaf blowers?
>> No. No, I don't. But I' I'd like the idea that uh you know somebody wanted to try to get in a double shift to make a bonus during the time that they couldn't go after 8 8:00 p.m. as opposed to a general noise ordinance. Yeah. There's
four leaf blowers. It's noisy. I'm going to call somebody. >> So you're saying that there should be you're suggesting guidelines for this? >> Yeah, that's that that's all that I'm suggesting. There are no guidelines. It just if there's noise, somebody has to
call and complain about it and then it goes. I don't I'm not quite sure where it goes at that point. >> Well, that that's who is who are they going to call at 9:00? >> But I'm saying right now there's no guidance to the landscapers. They can do basically whatever they want as long as
nobody complains. Whereas now, no, you can't do it on a Sunday. You can't do it on a federal holiday. You can't do it real early in the morning. You can't do it late at night. But if they're bothering someone by doing that, they can call and complain.
>> Sure. >> I don't see why you need a >> Why? No. Would anybody call and complain on a Sunday? There's nothing in the current ordinance that says you can't. >> They can call and complain 24/7, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day.
>> There's also a noise stipulation, too. Currently, in 208 >> 15, >> yeah, 150 ft at a certain dec. So you could use that as I mean I don't know how many people have a decibel reader at home but that's kind of where I feel
like a a draft that is proposed uh like draft uh the draft that we have should step in you know maybe but um that was a question I had about the draft actually that we read was was the decibel levels and reading them and and the property
line um because it would take a very particular individual to really prove a breach of a I I think the decibel level is kind of a weak link in those. >> Sure. I I als I also speaking as like a in my individual capacity as somebody
who works full-time during weekdays, uh weekends are when lawn work and property work happen um for us or where it's possible to happen. I I understand the concept of of you know having days
where it you know you're not disturbing the community with noise but I think that the board we should consider um all all perspectives on that as well you know >> unless we have a private a public meeting >> well I I'll just I'll go back to you
know where this arose I mean the board had a number of complaints presented to it that uh about specifically about leaf blowers. So >> where are these complaints? I've not seen them. >> Well, I I know that they were presented
to the board, several of them >> when >> Well, [laughter and clears throat] I think a lot >> we we had this discussion several meetings ago and it was decided that we would put together a group to come up with a regulation to deal with these complaints. >> So that's what we
>> But I'm asking where are the complaints? I don't have them with me, but you know, I'm just saying if if now we want to go backwards and say, well, maybe that was unnecessary. Let's stick with the current noise ordinance. Fine. Let's
take a vote on that >> or should we open it up to the public? I don't know. If we see if there is any I mean >> I feel like we need a tighter draft. Pardon me. >> I feel like we need a tighter draft of to in order to open it up to the public.
Um, personally that's I would recommend doing that if we are going to do that. >> If we're I mean if we're gonna see if there are complaints or not complaints or whatever I I mean I I don't know what the best thing to do is but maybe >> maybe that if we if we can't agree I
don't know. And if >> if you did put a regulation with the time, who are they going to call and complain to if the board of health is not open at night? They're not open on weekends. >> Again, my my thought was you're more
sending a message to the landscapers that there is this regulation. If they want to violate it, I'm sure someone will complain it to the police department. The police department will forward it to us. will go to the landscaper and said you violated the regulation.
>> Could we pose a question to town council about the scope of what we can enforce as far as like a health department regarding decibel levels, hours of operation, fines, you know what is possible before we have a discussion of
what we actually put in a draft. >> We could Yes. And um and as was mentioned the avenue for complaints if it's a town noise bylaw uh you know people could call and the police um you
know could come out on those times when health department is not open or working. So uh the avenue between a board of health regulation versus a town bylaw would be a good distinction to make as far as enforcement. So, yes, we
can reach out to C town council. >> Thank you. >> That sounds good. >> Okay. >> So, should we continue until you've spoken with town council? >> Yes. Um, and I'm not sure how fast they get back, so I'm not sure if it'd be
something ready for the next hearing, but perhaps the hearing >> we're coming to the end of the season anyway, so >> we're coming to the end of the season anyway. So, [clears throat] over the summer landscaping season. >> Yeah. If it if it if it takes a little time, it takes a
little time. >> All right. So, why don't we >> You have a question coming up. >> Oh, we have a question. [clears throat] Uh Paul Lafan. Yeah, I do have a question and that is where does um where does the noise level as you said about
decibel become an impact on public health and how much does the board of health have over protecting public health versus what goes on? I don't know the answer to that question. >> I know. Sorry. >> Go ahead. >> I know the it's in our packet. The OSHA
standard is 85 dB over an eight hour period. 85 dB is low is about the same. [snorts] >> Oh, phones can't be good either. >> I put it on no ring, but I have Bluetooth hearing aids, so my phone started ringing in my my ear. Sorry. The
other question is too about electric. Um going from gas to electric. Um, we have a little electric blower that works, but when they come into the neighborhoods, they are four people in a crew and maybe there's two or three different um houses
having their stuff and it's all week. Some people want it done on Thursdays. You'd think when it's raining that it wouldn't happen, but they're out there in the rain. Um, and I understand a clean lawn, but the capacity of how much altogether that impacts. Is there a way
to say um to use electric leaf blowers instead of the gas ones? I also think climate wise we're being asked to cut down our carbon uh footprint and they far outweigh anything that I do um in my
yard. That was my question. electric electric um reflex. I >> I think there's a lot of push back when I talk to landscapers about using electric because they all have gas and electric has the batteries that they have to do and it would take longer. Not that it wouldn't be more beneficial to
the environment, but it takes longer for the job, which they of course would pass that on to the customer and uh they just, you know, it just didn't seem like it was anything that they were going to be doing in the near future. that. >> Yeah.
>> Right. I was going to say uh for the commercial companies the it's just if you're doing it all day, it's hard to change out battery packs and charge. Um but it's it's very doable for homeowners. Um just the commercial landscaping companies. >> Exactly. [clears throat]
>> Correct. >> Well, should we vote to continue this until after he's spoken with town council? That's I I'll make a motion that we continue it until then. >> Second.
>> All right. And a vote. Ron. >> Uh I approve that. >> Joanna, >> I approve. >> I approve. >> Carol, >> I approve. >> All right. So, we'll continue it to a future. >> Okay. And we know what gender we know what we're going to ask town council.
Correct. About >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh, [clears throat] are there any public comments or agenda item requests? [clears throat] Good afternoon everyone. It's great to
see you. You're doing a great job. I think getting the questions back to uh the town council is a really good idea. So, maybe give you some direction. I do have an agenda item request and it's one that um I think we need to kind of get back on and stay ahead of it is that sewer hookups in town. Um I know Andrew
is working on it and there's a new software uh that they're implementing to better um keep track of uh who who's received notices and who hasn't hooked up and stuff. And it's it's a lot harder than just sewer hookup requests. We we
need to come up and and I think as a community and as a leadership team, we need to come up with ways that um better uh provide our folks that have received notices the financial means to hook up so the folks know that we have other
resources available um for them to hook up. So, it's not just like saying please hook up. It's very expensive to do so. And I think we need to research and and keep keep at tools for our folks to hook up. It makes
very this this is an editorial comment. It makes very little sense to spend $130 million on the infrastructure we have spent in town and then not have people hooking up. Again, it it's difficult to finance. They're sometimes complex, but
I think we need to keep it as a an agenda item in our in in the forefront for the board of health. And thank you for your time and appreciate all your hard work. It's great to see uh you know, five members and two alternates. Really great to see. Thank you so much.
>> Thank you. Are there any changes to the minutes from July 20th? 2026. Uh, do I hear a motion to approve the minutes? >> I'll make a motion. >> And second.
>> I'll second. >> Second. All right. A vote to approve the minutes of the July 20th, 2026 meeting. >> I approve. >> I approve. >> I approve. >> I approve. >> Okay. The minutes are approved.
And do I hear a motion to adjourn the meeting? >> I make a motion to adjourn the meeting. >> I'll second. >> All right. And vote on um I approve. >> Joanna, >> I approve. >> I approve. >> I
>> I approve. So the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.