ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting
January 3rd, 2019
MINUTES
Members & Planning Staff Present:
Janet McEwen (Chair), Chris Condon (Vice Chair), Mary Allen (Member), John Robertson (Ex-Officio), Bob Holmes (Member), Carol Ogilvie (Planning Consultant via phone conference), Ashley Brudnick-Destromp (Assistant to Land Use Boards), Steve
MacDonald (Alternate), and Lynne Rosansky (Member)
Members Absent: William Bryk (Member)
Others Present: Francis Parisi (Parisi Law Associates, LLC), Patricia Richardson (self), Shelley Nelkens (self), Charlotte Hebert (Windsor), Peter Beblowski (self), Nick Handy (Monadnock Ledger Transcript), Gerald Needham (Windsor), Kathleen
Clark (self), Greg Costello (SAI-AT&T), Martha E. Pinello (self), Richard Block (abutter), Kevin Mason (SAI and AT&T), and Marshall Gale (Fire Chief)
CTO: Chair McEwen called the meeting to order at 7:00pm
I. Minutes:
Review: Chair McEwen asked the Board to review the minutes from 12/20/18.
Discussion: several spelling errors for names were corrected prior to the meeting between Chair McEwen and Ms. Brudnick-Destromp. A few spelling errors were pointed out.
Motion: Mr. Condon made a motion to accept the minutes as amended, Mr. Holmes second it.
By a voice vote, all were in favor.
Ms. Allen joined the Board at 7:05pm prior to review of the second set of minutes.
Minutes Part 2:
Review: Chair McEwen asked the Board to review the minutes from 12/29/18 that were from the site visit. It was discussed and verified that there was a quorum present, since Mr. Bryk was absent.
Discussion: Chair McEwen asked Mr. Parisi to verify the easement of the gravesite. Mr. Parisi said it was 10ft from center, and 5ft on each side. Mr. Condon wanted the photos he had taken added to the file, he will email them to Ms. Brudnick-Destromp. Mr. Holmes verified several things he wanted added.
Motion: Mr. Holmes made a motion to approve the minutes as amended, Mr. Condon second it.
By a voice vote, all agreed. Ms. Rosansky abstained, as she was not present at the site visit. Mr. MacDonald did not vote, as he is an alternate that wasn’t sworn in yet. Chair McEwen said that if Mr. Bryk didn’t arrive prior to the public hearing, she would swear him in.
II. Planning Assistant Report
Ms. Brudnick-Destromp said that Ms. Lisa Murphy from the SWRPC wrote an email to her, after receiving her certified mail notification of regional impact, requesting that the Board extend the hearing until 1/17/19 to allow time to review the application and Ms. Ogilvie’s staff report.
Ms. Brudnick-Destromp said that Ms. Donna Hanson has asked the board to review their budget, and to try and bring it down closer to the $30,000 per the Selectmen’s request. She mentioned they can table it to the next meeting, and she will send the spreadsheet out to the board.
Ms. Brudnick-Destromp mentioned that the Board needed to pick a date for the Civic Plus presentation. The presentation would take about 20 minutes, and then could leave 40 minutes for discussion. She mentioned she did not know if there was a deadline to produce a budget to the select board for the website. There was a discussion between Chair McEwen, Mr. Robertson, and Ms. Brudnick-Destromp regarding the presentation. The dates available are 1/15, 1/16, 1/22, and 1/23. The Chair asked Ms. Brudnick-Destromp to pick a date and to let them know. Ms. Brudnick-Destromp suggested 1/22, as there is not meeting that week, and that she would reach out to Bill from Civic Plus to arrange.
Ms. Brudnick-Destromp said that she had double checked with Ms. Ogilvie regarding any zoning ordinance amendments for this year to add to next year, and she verified that there were none. She also mentioned that the staff photo came out very well, and was submitted, as well as the annual report for 2018.
Friendly reminder, Town Election day is March 12th, and Town Meeting is March 14th.
Ms. Brudnick-Destromp said that Mr. Condon’s and Mr. Holmes terms are coming to an end, and that they have from January 23rd to February 1st to file if they wish to continue with the planning board. Chair McEwen asked if either of them knew yet what their plans were, Mr. Holmes said he did not know.
Ms. Brudnick-Destromp said she attended a FEMA conference a few weeks ago in Peterborough. FEMA is looking to re do the flood maps and are in stage 1 of a 4 year process to produce new maps in 5 years. They want to make sure it is done correctly, as there were several issues with the maps done in 2009. Ms. Brudnick-Destromp produced a map to show the board, and explained the technology that went into it. She mentioned that she had reached out to the Conservation Commissioner to meet with her to verify if it is accurate.
Chair McEwen asked about a Department Review from the fire department. Ms. Brudnick-Destromp said that she had received a Department Review from Fire Chief Gale, and that his only comment was that the town receives a key for the entry gate lock.
III. Public Hearing
Chair McEwen explained that Ms. Ogilvie was on speaker phone for a phone consultation for the public hearing.
7:15pm Chair McEwen called the continuation of the public hearing to order. She appointed Mr. MacDonald as an alternate to take the place of Mr. Bryk.
Chair asked if the representatives from Windsor were present, they raised their hands two of them. She asked if the town of Windsor would like to ask any questions. Ms. Hebert stood up and said she got answers from email, and they were all set. Chair McEwen asked if Ms. Hebert was the selectmen, she replied yes, her and the gentlemen with her.
Chair said that one at time abutters and people in favor or against the application can ask their questions, and that the applicant will have an opportunity to respond.
Chair McEwen asked if any abutters wished to speak in favor of the application, no one responded.
Chair asked if any abutters that wished to speak in opposition were present. Mr. Block said he would like to speak, and produced a typed statement with copies to the board, and to be added to the file. Mr. Block said that he lives on Loveren Mill road, immediately to the south where the lot is proposed, and he owns several parcels of land that abut the affected property. He talked about when him and his wife first moved to Antrim, and referenced the zoning ordinance and how the town has a say in it, and how it’s a living extension of how the residents wish to live. He mentioned the 5 request of waivers to the zoning ordinance being made by the applicant, and that Vertex Tower Assets has asked the planning board to bypass those ordinances. He mentioned that the ZBA should be deciding this, and not just the planning board. He mentioned that
the tower far exceeds what is necessary for the town to gain coverage, and how it will affect wildlife. Mr. Block said that 5g radiation urges further research for health and environmental purposes. Mr. Block mentioned Antrim Wind violating height ordinances, and asked the board to deny the application.
Chair McEwen asked if anyone else would like to speak for or against, or any other abutters or interested parties. No abutters wished to speak.
Ms. Pinello asked to speak tonight. Ms. Pinello introduced herself and mentioned that she is a former Planning Board member, and someone who has had professional involvement in cell towers. She mentioned her work history, and that when it came to cell towers, she was not only involved in the sighting of them, but environmental impact, the topographic siting of them, software mapping for proper location, the reception that would be received them, and she was involved with environmental site services for cell tower locations.
Ms. Pinello stated that, with her background, that tonight she comes opposed to the application. She mentioned that the Stoddard/Antrim line to Sullivan on Route 9 is kind of tough driving in the winter, and she is aware that fire and police need immediate emergency response, and that they need conductivity on this difficult piece of road. Ms. Pinello said that she proposes that with projects that have more then 3 variance requests, re design needs to be looked at. She pointed out the variances:
1. The height of the tower needs to be looked at, and crowning part on top of it needs to be looked at.
2. The proposed tower has lattice work, and that is not part of our zoning. Ms. Pinello mentioned that this is another design issue.
3. Ms. Pinello mentioned that the fall area for this does not fit the towns requirements.
She said that there are other issues, but as a previous planning board member, this project to her is clearly a ZBA project. She said she understands that rules have changed thopugh. Chair McEwen mentioned it’s a conditional permit application. Ms. Pinello said the process is still the same, and she likes to use the “3 Strikes you’re out!” baseball analogy when it comes to applications.
Ms. Pinello said that she is aware the proposed cell tower is appealing for emergency personal, but it needs to be redesigned, or a different company needs to come in with a different strategy. She added that there is no hardship in this, and it is important to look at the definition of hardship in terms of waivers vs. ZBA. Ms. Pinello wanted it noted that the state of NH has pdf guidelines for cell towers. She recommends that the planning board and the applicants review the zoning ordinance again, and those guidelines. Ms. Pinello added that on Route 9 you get the best service for towers that are along the valley, but not towers up high. She said she would encourage SWRP to look at the state to find other ways. Ms. Pinello wanted to mention that cell phone coverage and emergency crews is needed in the area, but this is not the way to get
it. She referenced an incident where someone had a fatal heart attack, and there was no cell service.
Ms. Pinello mentioned that an additional factor needs to be addressed, and that it has nothing to do with the application, but how we respect our community members. Ms. Pinello mentioned the Durling grave/graves. She explained her background in graves as well, and that the two reported graves and the current property owner appear to be in violation of state law regarding these graves. She once again stated this has nothing to do with applicant. Ms. Pinello said that there needs to be a solution, one grave is registered and one is not from what she can see in the deeds easements. Ms. Pinello said that the graves need to be given the respect they deserve, and that they are unmarked graves that need proper marks. She said she is calling on the Selectmen, the owners of the property, and the Cemetary Commission to get this sorted out. Chair
McEwen said that they were marked. Ms. Pinello said that the graves are not registered in the deed.
Ms. Pinello once again restated that she speaks in opposition, and that it needs to follow the ordinances. Chair McEwen asked her if she was present at the last meeting. Ms. Pinello replied no, but had gathered information from the minutes. Chair McEwen said that Mr. Parisi is here tonight, and has his slideshow if she needs to ask him questions.
Mr. Macdonald asked to clarify with Ms. Pinello what she meant by lower towers along the valley. Ms. Pinello said that what has been successful is not putting a tower on the top of a hill, but from going from point A to point B along the road bellow, and some places use telephone poles. Mr. MacDonald asked Ms. Pinello if she was opposed to a cell tower in general or just design. She clarified it was the design.
Chair McEwen asked Ms. Pinello to help provide some of her information, she said she would.
Mr. Beblowski of 318 Smith road. Mr. Beblowski said he speaks to support Martha Pinello and Richard Blocks testimony, and thanked the board.
Ms. Richardson lives on Clinton Road, not far from Gregg Lake. Ms. Richardson asked Mr. Parisi if it is safe to assume that the proposed tower is tall enough to support 5G. Mr. Parisi said that the tower is tall enough to support multiple networks, but that 5G is a separate concept. Ms. Richardson asked if that 5G did come in, if Mr. Parisi would have to apply for another permit. Mr. Parisi said under the Zoning Bylaw, if it is just a matter of swapping out antennas then no.
Chair McEwen asked if anyone else would like to speak?
Fire Chief Marshall Gale asked to speak, he said he isn’t going to say pro or con on the tower itself, but he wants to speak on the emergency service side of it. Chief Gale said that spot has numerous incidents, and any coverage they can get would be a big improvement on their part. He wanted people to know that both ambulances are linked in with cell phones now, so that when they do an EKG, they can transport the information directly to the hospital before the patient arrives so a cardiologist can review it before they arrive with the patient. Chief Gale mentioned that incidents happen, and people have to travel many miles to get coverage, and by the time they get there, it is another 10 or plus miles from where they were before.
Chair McEwen asked Chief Gale what sections has he noted that have bad service? Chief Gale responded that most places on Route 9 past the North Station up until the Stone 9 Bridge. Chief Gale said that if you are lucky to get a signal, you best not move otherwise you will lose it. Chief Gale added that once you get into Stoddard, the Roxbury tower fills in, but that is past Antrim.
Chief Lester said that he just wanted to back up Chief Gales statements. He also mentioned that he is not for or opposed to this proposal. Chief Lester mentioned that emergency services are evolving, and are continuing to rely on these new technologies, such as the heart monitors. Chief Lester said that they rely on radio systems, and that their Motorola radios have a dead zone there, and that the state is pushing them to use cell phones down the road in the future. The service out there makes it harder to know if there was an emergency out there, and there are delayed responses. Chief Lester said that It interferes with our officers, traffic calls, and emergency calls. He added that the police rely on our communication with our officers for safety, and sometimes they have to leave an emergency to get service. He hopes that the issues can be
worked out with the proposal so they can get some additional service out there.
Chair McEwen thanked Chief Lester, and asked if anyone else would like to speak.
Mr. Block said he appreciates what the chiefs say, but he thinks the Planning Board fix the problem with a proposal that is compliant with our zoning ordinance. He added that maybe there is a company that can do that, and that our zoning ordinance is very carefully worked out. Mr. Block finished his statement by asking, “Can we still comply with our zoning ordinance and solve the problem?”
Chair McEwen asked Mr. Parisi if he would like to respond now. He replied “Yes.”
Ms. Brudnick-Destromp said she needed read abutter information that was submitted to her by email first.
Ms. Brudnick-Destromp said that Barbara Berwick of Antrim wanted these 3 questions asked on her behalf?
- Will this tower provide coverage to the Old Pound Rd? to Rt 31 from Rt 9 to Gregg Lake Road? To Rt 9 from Reed Carr to Old North Branch Rd (and beyond)? I realize they have maps, but it’s not that easy to understand. I just would hope that if there is a tower going in that these areas would have coverage.
- How was this particular spot chose, did the owners of this property approach the tower company, or is the process totally without input from individuals and only in regard to proper placement for the best cell phone coverage?
- Will the wind turbines, or Tuttle Mountain cause any interference?
Ms. Brudnick-Destromp said that Jennifer White of Antrim also had submitted articles as well as a youtube video that were all forwarded to the Planning Board for review. The content of those articles and video were mostly regarding the public health and safety of the residents.
Ms. Brudnick-Destromp said that Mr. Block had also submitted 2 articles that were forwarded to the Planning Board. Both of those were also regarding public health and safety concerns. He also had submitted a photo of a cell tower in Troy, NY that was provided at the last meeting.
Ms. Brudnick-Destromp said that Ms. Nelkens also had submitted 2 articles regarding the health and public safety of approving the proposed cell tower. Both articles were forwarded to the Planning Board members for review.
Ms. Brudnick-Destromp also said she received an email from Ms. Hebert of Windsor (selectmen) regarding her concern for the wildlife and the birds with the tower’s proposed height being 175ft. Ms. Hebert wasn’t aware of the blueberry field, so she was concerned that if it was active, by taking it away would it increase bear sitings elsewhere. Ms. Hebert is about 2.9 miles from the proposed tower, so seeing it isn’t an issue as the possible impact it will have on wildlife. Ms. Brudnick-Destromp also added that Ms. Hebert wanted it made known that these views were her own, and not the town of Windsors.
Chair McEwen informed Ms. Hebert that they do have photos of the actual site that the board members took if she wanted to view those as well.
Chair McEwen asked Mr. Parisi to answer the questions.
Mr. Parisi said there were lots of issues raised tonight by various people, and he wanted to break them into 3 categories: public safety, zoning bylaw, & health and safety concerns (frequencies and health.)
Mr. Parisi wanted to start with public safety, as several people said that Antrim needs a tower to satisfy public safety concerns. Mr. Parisi said that the Fire Chief and the Police Chief have their own communication system, and they have dead spots, especially towards Stoddard and northern Antrim. Mr. Parisi said that they have offered Antrim police and fire to put antennas on for free to help this issue.
Mr. Paris said that the Police chief had mentioned that their radio system is getting older, and they are using cell networks for back up. Mr. Parisi said that 90% of 911 calls are made from cell phones, so it is a public need for safety.
Mr. Parisi added that there is a new national concept coming in that is being deployed nationally. First Net, is a public private partnership between AT&T and the government to deploy a whole network throughout the country. Public safety will be able to utilize this network. Mr. Parisi explained that the reason why we are here in Antrim is because it makes us look at it geographically, and not population based.
Mr. Parisi then showed a youtube video roughly 3 minutes long about First Net: a broadband network for public safety, by public safety. First Net was developed after 9/11 after public safety pushed for their own broadband network. AT&T has provided this network, and it uses the private sector to deliver information throughout the network. Mr. Parisi added that no one is in dispute that the need is there, the concern is the zoning ordinance. Mr. Parisi said he spent a lot of time looking at it, and they tried very hard to comply with the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Parisi said that the area where the proposed tower would be going is an undeveloped area in the rural conservation district, and being there helps them achieve a lot of the zoning bylaw regulations. He added that a cell tower is permitted there, subject to receiving a conditional use permit from the planning board. Mr. Parisi mentioned that he had provided a memorandum where he applied for waivers for technical things he can not 100% apply with, and he thought they did good only having 5 waivers, where the zoning ordinance is so long. Mr. Parisi said that the zoning board doesn’t even have jurisdiction to review this, and that it is a Planning Board matter.
Mr. Parisi then pulled up the topography map, and explained they need to get above it, and as minimally visually as possible. Most of the land to the west is conservation land owned by a conservation district. They are in private land that the owners have the ability to lease the land through a business deal. They were unable to move the location further south because of wet lands. The reason they have to go up the existing driveway, and the abutters lot Mr. Collelo, is because of the wet lands. Mr. Parisi explained that the topography doesn’t allow for smaller towers. He said that Ms. Pinello had mentioned sometimes you can go in the river valley, and sometimes you cannot because of the topography. The valley blocks service because of the hills. He pointd to the slide show to show the aras where they had explored putting the tower, and
have the reasons why they can’t put it there. There was an extensive analysis done, and that was the right place.
Mr. Parisi said that there is a lot of this discussion about 5G, and it’s the future evolution of telecommunications. 5G network allows devices to talk to other devices, it’s an equipment issue, not a frequency issue. To say it causes health effects is very misleading. Antrim is a generation behind, where they barely have 4G coverage. This tower is to further develop 4G, not 5G. 5G is the future, and it will be a very long time before it comes to Antrim, and it doesn’t pertain to the signal and isn’t sure why it’s in the discussion.
Mr. Parisi went on to say that specialist have background on 5g, and how it is meant to bring high data speed, and it’s not meant for rural areas because it wouldn’t be giving a signal off to another tower nearby. It is intended more for urban areas to bypass Comcast or cable providers and to do it wirelessly. Chair McEwen mentioned they have to be in compliance with the FCC regulations, and that we have nothing to do with that. Mr. Parisi responded and said that is correct, any provider that adds their signals on in the future is required to follow FCC regulations as well. The maximum cumulative percent of MPE in consideration of AT&T’s proposed installation is calculated to be 1.21% of the FCC limit. Chair McEwen was referencing the slide. The 1.21% is only 1000ft from the tower, if you go closer or lower it is even less
than that.
Mr. Condon asked Mr. Parisi to pull up the coverage map, so that they can answer Ms. Berwick’s questions. Chair McEwen also asked that Mr. Parisi provide the map that shows the coverage of the proposed tower with the tower on Pierce Lake Road. Mr. Parisi said that there is one in Stoddard as well. Mr. Parisi then pulled up a coverage map, and showed the before and the after. Mr. Parisi said that, “The tower in Stoddard has been built and AT&T is going on that tower as well to fill the gap. This is designed to cover to the route 31 interchange.”
Ms. Brudnick-Destromp asked Ms. Berwick’s questions again regarding coverage. It was determined that they would have coverage on all parts mentioned except the part that goes to Gregg Lake, this tower will not cover that.
Mr. Parisi explained that they had asked for 5 waivers. One for the height, one for the 2x the height set back from property line, 3 of the waivers were with respect to the design of the tower. Mr. Pariosi said that our bylaw prohibits lattice towers, and has a diameter requirement. He was not sure how to read the diameter requirement, so he asked for a waiver to be on the safe side. Mr. Parisi said that the height is driven by the topography, and we provided that data. Mr. Parisi said that if the height was changed to 100ft, it wouldn’t provide any coverage along the stretch of Route 9. There were not lots along Route 9 that we could go closer and build a shorter tower, even if it was economically feasible to build 5 towers along Route 9. Mr. Parisi added that, with respect to the design tower, Mr. Holmes had requested other lattice
towers in the area, and that information was provided. Half the towers we see are so far away they cannot see what type of structure it is. He is aware the pierce lake tower was being designed as a pole with fake branches on it, and it supports 5 antennas. Mr. Parisi said, “Could we do that? Yes. Would it be appropriate for this location? I do not think so. The locations are different, and it would stick out like a giant pipe cleaner.”
Mr. Parisi had a discussion of mono pole towers and the pros of lattice towers and future structural enhancements on lattice towers. He said that a lattice tower is the better alternative and is better for the future.
Mr. Parisi mentioned the photo Mr. Block had submitted, and how that view was up close, and no one would have that view from the public unless they were trespassing due to the area. “You aren’t going to see the lattice or the antennas in that nature,” Mr. Parisi said.
Chair McEwen asked the abutters if the responses where efficient to their questions. Mr. Block said he did not really understand Mr. Parisi because of his hearing issues. Chair McEwen asked that in the future, if anyone has hearing issues or cannot hear to let them know ahead of time.
Ms. Hebert asked if there is coverage from the AT&T tower for people who don’t use AT&T, for instance, U.S. cellular is what she has, so she doesn’t lack coverage. Mr. Parisi said that the board could not deny an application because they don’t lack coverage because they use a different carrier. He added that AT&T would allow AT&T and First Net, and any other carrier that adds on after.
Ms. Hebert asked if the Motorola coverage increase for the fire and police department? Mr. Parisi explained that it’s a different network.
Ms. Pinello had a question for the applicant. She asked Mr. Parisi if he could please discuss, unless he wished not to, the difference between a mono tower and a lattice tower, and what it provides his company the opportunity to be able to acquire other antennas to that. Ms. Pinello added that one is a triangle, and one is a single pole. She asked Mr. Parisi if he can talk about the different opportunities for siting on those towers, and why one would be a better business advantage then the other?
Mr. Parisi said that Vertex Tower Assets is a real-estate developer, and that they are into it to build a structure that encourages multiple carriers and that the zoning law encourages that. He explained that back in the early years of telecommunications, everyone built their own towers and they were competitors. Wireless infrastructure developers do business with everyone, and have deals with multiple telecommunication companies. Mr. Parisi said that they build more sites without deploying more capital to build a structure. In the question of Llattice vs mono poles, it used to be mono poles were cheaper. Steal is more expensive now, and it used to be that labor was more than steal. Mr. Parisi explained that to build a lattice tower is more labor intensive and less steal, so it is more economically structured. A mono pole is designed for
what the structure volume will be. Some Mono Poles are the size of a silo, and in order to make it structurally accommodating it becomes more visually imposing, and is not modifiable for the future.
Ms. Pinello said that essentially what Mr. Parisi said is they want to make a tower almost 2x high as the zoning ordinance, and that by making it lattice they are asking for a variance. Ms. Pinello said to Mr. Parisi that this is a business choice to go beyond our zoning ordinance to provide what you believe is service, but a profit for the infrastructure that you provide for and the real-estate.
Mr. Parisi said that this town has approved waivers for towers that were taller than 100ft. Ms. Rosansky and Ms. Pinello both said that was correct. Mr. Parisi added that you cannot make them invisible, the technology demands you need to get above the trees. Ms. Pinello said to Mr. Parisi, “What I am saying to you is that you made specific business choices for our community to take that on.” She added that she would request the board consider the choices that have been made.
Mr. Beblowski said as a former member of the Planning Board back when the personal wireless ordinance was written, the permitting of the lattice tower was based on a decision based on being detrimental to wildlife, specifically migrant birds. Mr. Beblowski asked, “What they have done to remedy that situation?” He then asked the board to take that into consideration.
Mr. Parisi said that the structure itself does not have an effect on migrant birds, but height does. All the facilities are heavily federally regulated. He added that the National Policy Act requires an extensive analysis on this exact tower, at this exact location and height. They look at migrant birds, endangered species both animal and plant, the analysis gets done but federal government shut down is pausing it at the moment, but we will have that information. If the tower does not comply with the National Policy Act, they cannot build it. He added that, “We will provide the results of that to the town, but it’s an independent process.”
Ms. Allen said that on page 15 of his letter dated Nov. 13th, it says concurrent with an application for a building permit for the facility. Ms. Allen asked why so late in the process? There was a long conversation between Ms. Allen and Mr. Parisi, where Mr. Parisi explained that they don’t do the federal check until the end, because if anything is asked to be changed by the board inregards to design, location, color, ect., then they will have to start the federal process all over again. Ms. Allen said she doesn’t understand how this can not be a wildlife issue.
Mr. Condon said that the processes are all different. They decided to come to us first, and if the federal government asks them to change it, then they need to come back to the Planning Board again. Mr. Parisi said that they typically do not build anything over 200ft, and because of that, he has not been involved with anything to do with migrant birds. Mr. Parisi said that they are here tonight because they understand the need to comply with all the federal requirements. He added that they did research already, and believe they aren’t going to have an issue.
Chair McEwen informed Ms. Allen that she asked the same question at the last meeting, and received the same answer.
Mr. Block said he assumed the coverage maps were done using the specifications of the 175ft tower, but wanted to know if coverage could be show for a 100ft or 80ft tower. Chair McEwen asked to add on to that question, Mr. Block said that was fine. Chair McEwen asked what coverage they can obtain if they were just 20ft above the tree line? Mr. Parisi said that the minimum would be able to achieve coverage would be if the tower is at 175ft. Chair McEwen added that she also wanted to see a map done if the tower was at 100ft, 125ft, and 150ft. She added that the tallest tower in town is currently 150ft, and the tree canopy was 80ft in that area. There was a long discussion between Chair McEwen and Mr. Parisi in terms of the tree line, heights, coverage based on heights. She ended with saying that she wanted to confirm that at the absolute
tallest, the tower would be 175ft tall, and not go past that. Mr. Parisi said that was correct. Chair McEwen asked about the information the board had requested regarding comparable towers in the area, Mr. Parisi said he had provided it to Ms. Brudnick-Destromp yesterday. Ms. Brudnick-Destromp confirmed that she has received it, and forwarded it along to the board. The other board members confirmed they had received it, and that there were 8 towers in the area around the same height that were lattice structure.
Chair McEwen said that Mr. Parisi needs to add this under hardship. Mr. MacDonald said that hardship goes with the land and the land owner, and has nothing to do with this proposal. Mr. Parisi said that he believes the waiver requirements require them to show a hardship. Mr. MacDonald said that hardship has nothing to do with if the project would go forward, but rather if there is no other use for the land. Mr. Parisi said that the federal courts are involved in these matters, and that it gets above the local level. There was a long discussion between Mr. Parisi, Mr. MacDonald, and Chair McEwen regarding hardship, the definition of it, and how it applies to this case.
Mr. Condon asked Ms. Ogilvie if they can leave the public hearing open still process wise for further discussion. Ms. Ogilvie said yes, it would be premature to close to the meeting at this time.
Mr. Block once again asked if this should go in front of the ZBA. Chair McEwen explained once again, that this is a Planning Board matter, not a zoning application, and it was changed because of the last project.
There was further discussion of the gravesite between Chair McEwen and Mr. Parisi. Chair McEwen asked Mr. Parisi to provide more information on this at the next meeting. Mr. Parisi said he could but wanted to know why, as he said it isn’t the jurisdiction of the planning board, as he knows the town has a separate entity for that. Mr. Parisi said that the easement on record only pertained to access. Chair McEwen asked for a copy to be provided to them of the easement Mr. Parisi speaks of. Mr. Parisi said he would caution the board, Chair McEwen said they would have to clarify that. Mr. Condon added that it is something we need to look at as a town, but that it is not necessarily specific to the Planning Board, and that Ms. Pinello had mentioned that as well.
Chair McEwen said that at the last meeting, the Board had mentioned a 3rd party consultation paid by Vertex Tower Assets. Chair McEwen said that if the Board feels that is something that needs to be done, the Board needs to make a decision. The Chair asked, “Does anyone feel that is needed and wants to make a motion or not?”
Mr. MacDonald said he would like to, but thinks they will need to wait. There was a discussion amongst the board on how a motion can be made to keep it open.
Motion: Mr. MacDonald made a motion to hire a consultant, Ms. Allen second it.
Ms. Rosansky said the motion was to generic. She stated, “I want to know what we are asking the consultant to look at. What’s the consultant assessing?”
Chair McEwen said that it would be to verify what the applicant is saying is accurate.
Mr. MacDonald added that we among the board do not have enough background in the area of cell towers to verify if the information is accurate.
Chair McEwen clarified that they would be requesting an outside consultant who is technically qualified to give a second opinion on the opinion that is being given to u, and to also verify if their hardship request reasonable.
Mr. Holmes said he would like to have the motion re done.
Mr. Robertson said that he would like to hear Ms. Ogilvie’s response.
Ms. Ogilvie said that this is not uncommon, especially where no one on the board is an engineer, and are not able to assess what they are asking for. She went on to say that having an engineer consult is typical, and they will be able to tell you if this is a reasonable or unreasonable request. Ms. Ogilvie said that the question of hardship is not the same kind of approach, but the other question the board is going to evaluate when it comes to that is for you, the impact of the town, having a higher tower with more or lower with less.
Mr. Robertson said that it would be possible that the board may not feel like they need a review after getting the SWRPC review.
Mr. Parisi spoke to Ms. Ogilvie on the phone. He mentioned that this board approved a 150ft tower prior. Mr. Parisi said he wanted to wait to see what the SWRPC has to say first, and decide it that is sufficient or if it is needed to hire a 3rd party.
Ms. Ogilvie said that the SWRPC are not engineers, but what they bring back to the board by next meeting will help.
Several members of the board said that they need to clarify the motion
Mr. MacDonald said he would like to table to the motion, and a small discussion ensued among the Board members. The board asked Ms. Ogilvie with help making the motion.
“Want to reserve the right to hire a radio frequency engineer at the applicants expense to evaluate the proposal as submitted as the need for the proposed height relative to the coverage that that height would provide in addition to the tower structure.”
It was then decided that it was not going to be put in motion tonight.
Withdrawn Motion: Mr. MacDonald withdrew his original motion because he did not want to limit it.
Ms. Brudnick-Destromp asked if anyone would like to make the motion that was worded by Ms. Ogilvie. Chair McEwen said they would table it until the next meeting.
Motion: Mr. Condon made a motion to continue the public hearing, Mr. Holmes second it 9:28pm
Vote: By a voice vote all agreed
Meeting Adjourned: ~ Mr. MacDonald made a motion to end the meeting at 9:29pm, Ms. Rosansky second it.
By a voice vote, all agreed
Respectfully Submitted,
Ashley Brudnick-Destromp
(Assistant to Land Use Boards)
| 
