ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting
January 17th, 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:
Notes: William Bryk resigned from Planning Board as of 1/3/19 by email after the meeting on 1/3/19 had started. Chair McEwen informed the public that Mr. Bryk was no longer a member on the Planning Board.
Others Present: Francis Parisi (Parisi Law Associates, LLC), Patricia Richardson (self), Shelley Nelkens (self), Charlotte Hebert (Windsor), Gerald Needham (Windsor), Tom Johnson (Engineer), Greg Costello (SAI-AT&T), Kevin Mason (SAI and AT&T), Michael Pon (Reporter), Kenneth Mathews (Windsor), Ashley Saar (Ledger Trans), Ellen Blake (Windsor), (there were 2 more attendees who names were not legible, they are on the sheet attached to these minutes.)
CTO: Chair McEwen called the meeting to order at 7:00pm she appointed alternate Mr. MacDonald as a member to replace Mr. Bryk, as he is no longer a member.
I. Minutes:
Review: Chair McEwen asked the Board to review the minutes from 1/03/19.
Discussion: There was an error pointed out by Ms. Rosansky to Ms. Brudnick-Destromp prior to the meeting. Line 35 should read “abstained” and not “sustained.”
Motion: Mr. Condon made a motion to accept the minutes as amended, Mr. Holmes second it.
Vote: By a voice vote, all were in favor.
II. Planning Assistant Report
Ms. Brudnick-Destromp said that Lisa Murphy from the Southwest Regional Planning Commission had submitted her department review, and that all members of the Board should have received it by email, as well as the applicant. Ms. Brudnick-Destromp mentioned that as a reminder, the SWRPC reviews from a regional impact view, and not a local town view. She then read the 3 main points from the letter that Ms. Murphy had pointed out from a regional perspective and not a local perspective:
1. A proper tracking apron should be maintained for the access way and any material tracked onto the highway should be removed immediately.
2. Proper sightlines should be maintained for vehicles entering onto Loverens Mill Road. Landscaping should be located so that future growth will not pose a safety risk. Any signs, permanent or temporary, should be placed out of the sight line area.
3. The application states that the facility has been sited and designed to have the lease visibility from surrounding properties, and will be a color that will blend into the background. While it is difficult to gauge an aesthetic quality that meets the expectations of everyone, the applicant is encouraged to take measures to reduce the visibility impact to the fullest extent possible.
Ms. Brudnick-Destromp informed the board that the Town’s Road Agent, Jim Plourde, submitted a Highway Department Review for the application of the proposed cell tower via email. She informed the board that a copy was also sent to the applicant for their review. She then read the email, in which Mr. Plourde said that the company must be aware that can be held liable for any damages that may occur to the roadway due to construction. He also pointed out that as far as he can tell, the access will be off of our Class V section into a private driveway. Mr. Plourde also requested that the construction company remove the oak tree at the corner of the property if it is the land owner for this project as a safety measure.
Ms. Brudnick-Destromp explained that, as she mentioned briefly in the last meeting, the Selectboard had asked the planning board reduce their budget to $30,000 for the year of 2019. Ms. Brudnick-Destromp said that Chair McEwen and Donna Hanson both worked with her to make cuts, and that they were able to get it down to $31,900. Those cuts and reasons why were outlined in a letter signed by Chair McEwen that was presented to the Selectman at their meeting on Monday, January 14th, 2019. The Selectman accepted the budget as is, but the board still needs to vote on the changes made.
Ms. Brudnick-Destromp informed the board that the Selectman have asked the Town Administrator to select the website template. Donna Hanson informed Ms. Brudnick-Destromp that she had selected template D for the new website, and that she will make sure there is a business inventory selection on the front home page across the menu at the top to help promote local business. There will also be updated photos for the new website as well.
Ms. Brudnick-Destromp informed the board that as of today, the property tax cards on the town’s website are now up to date, and it took several hours to do so but the task is completed and the information is now correct. Chair McEwen mentioned she had noticed there was an error when viewing them, and was glad they were updated.
Ms. Brudnick-Destromp mentioned that the FEMA packet and map were completed and sent back to the main office in Boston.
Ms. Brudnick-Destromp also reminded the Board that she will not be here on 2/7/19, as she will be away on vacation.
Ms. Brudnick-Destromp explained that the Planning Board will have two 3 year vacancies, and one 2 year vacancy for 2019 now that Mr. Bryk has resigned. She posted all 3 positions on the Antrim & Bennington People Facebook page to help utilize social media to fill the positions. Enrollment is from 1/23/19 to 2/1/19.
II. Planning Board Budget Review
Chair McEwen asked the Board to review the information provided to them regarding the revised budget changes. Ms. Brudnick-Destromp informed the board that 2 departments were added together, “consultants” and “contracted services,” since they apply to the same areas. Chair McEwen and Ms. Brudnick-Destromp went over all the changes made. Ms. Brudnick-Destromp mentioned that moving forward, some of her hours will be coming out of Administration.
Motion: Mr. Holmes made a motion to approve the amended budget, Mary Allen second it.
Vote: By a voice vote, all were in favor.
Chair McEwen informed the board that she spoke to Ms. Ogilvie regarding a 3rd party review. She spoke to a consultant recommended by her, and his turn around time for a review he could have a review done by 1/31/19. Chair McEwen said that because the assistant will not be here on 2/7/19, if they need to continue after this evening she would like to have an out of order meeting on 1/31/19. Ms. Brudnick-Destromp explained that she spoke to Ms. Ogilvie, and it’s not necessary to post new notices but we can as an irregular meeting if we do continue to the 31st.
III. Public Hearing:
Chair McEwen called the public hearing to order at 7:14pm, and Ms. Ogilvie was conferenced called in on Mr. Condon’s cell phone.
Chair McEwen asked Mr. Parisi for the coverage map showing the tower on Pierce Lake and the proposed tower that she had requested. Mr. Parisi informed the Chair he had provided that information the previous meeting, but would reference back to it on the slide show.
Mr. Parisi brought up his slide show, and mentioned how he has been reviewing the information submitted by the board for review. He said that several bits of information were requested from the applicant, and he wanted to respond to those requests.
Mr. Parisi referenced an article regarding lack of cell coverage in the lake region, and he had sent this information in to Ms. Brudnick-Destromp earlier. He referenced the SWRPC did not have a lot of questions or issues with the application itself, and mentioned the 3 points that Ms. Murphy had mentioned in her letter. Mr. Parisi said that it did not seem like they were against the application. The tracking apron was already a part of the construction plans. In regards to visual impact, he said that Ms. Murphy said to make sure we do the best we can to minimize visual impact, and he believes they are doing that already.
Mr. Parisi referenced the U.S. Fish and Wildlife paperwork that Mr. Holmes had submitted to the board for review. Mr. Parisi said that he believes that they are doing the best they can to follow the recommendations that were made in that paperwork, and from a migratory bird perspective, the applicant has done the best in following these practices. There are no guide wires, and the height is nowhere near the max height that is referenced in the paperwork. Mr. Parisi said, “It’s not the perfect location, but given the lack of visibility it is a viable location.”
Mr. Parisi continued, and said that last time they met, there were questions about the grave site, and that the applicant did not create any of the issues in respect to the grave site. Mr. Parisi said that the applicant decided to, (in respect to those graves), introduce a split rail fence around it to note it and to prevent any vehicular traffic from crossing over.
Mr. Parisi said that the applicant has requested certain waivers from the zoning ordinance, and the Planning Board can grant them where as the ZBA grants variances. Strict conformity would pose an unnecessary hardship. Mr. Parisi added that similar to a variance application, the town has granted the Planning Board the power to grant waivers, rather than requiring the applicants seek variances from the ZBA to grant a variance, the ZBA must find that “denial of the permit would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner seeking it”
Mr. Parisi stated that the 2 significant waivers they are seeking are the height of the tower, and the tree canopy height. He said that the Board has previously granted these waivers for other applicants. He added that, it is clear from the reports that we cannot meet those standards and receive the coverage needed. Mr. Parisi said the Board also asked for a tower height set back, also known as a “fall zone.” The bylaw says that in order to insure public safety the minimum distance from the tower should be a diameter equal to twice the height of the facility, therefore a radius equal to tower height. Tower as designed has a radius in excess of tower height. Even if the tower did not meet setback, the Planning Board has authority to reduce or eliminate fall zone without a waiver, therefore no waiver is required. Mr. Parisi said he
does not think they need a waiver now for this. There was a small discussion of diameter, and measurements between Chair McEwen and Mr. Parisi.
Mr. Parisi said that the other waiver is the antenna type, and that it is a lattice tower.
Chair McEwen asked for the clarification of the tower, and the mounting bracket. Is it more than 4ft? Mr. Parisi asked Mr. Johnson what the exact measurement is. There was a discussion between Chair McEwen, Mr. Parisi, and the expert, Mr. Johnson, and a photo was shown on the slide of a birds eye view of the tower to show the base mount. Mr. Parisi said he no longer believes he needs a waiver regarding this.
The 372 Route 9 Keene Rd slide photo was shown again to show the top of the tower, and how the visual impact is minimal. Mr. Parisi said that the Board can make a decision on if a waiver regarding visual impacts of a larger antenna array are negligible, given the distance.
Mr. Parisi said that another waiver was in regards to ground and roof mounts, and the topic of lattice vs. monopole tower designs. Mr. Parisi showed a slide showing the differences, and how lattice towers are more accommodating to future carriers, and future technologies. “Lattice can be used for installations up to 200ft, and monopoles are for installations up to 150ft,” said Mr. Parisi. He added that lattice towers are easier to construct, and there is less impact on the environment during construction. He also said that lattice towers are more accommodating to municipal/public safety antennas. Mr. Parisi said, “The highway department sent out a memorandum for us to be careful about the road, a monopole is a much more intense structure. The higher it is, the more dense it is with steel, the crane and the trucks required to install
are much more intense because of this. The lattice tower is much easier so there is a lot less impact on the roads and driveways. Given the length of distance off the public ROW and asphalt, a lattice tower is just easier with less impact to construct. We can build a monopole, but the potential impact on the roads and the additional cost is not worth it. The lattice tower can accommodate public safety antennas, and the feedback about doing that for the town was positive. A monopole is harder to put the antennas on, and it’s not as good for public safety antennas.”
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 slide was pulled up. Mr. Parisi explained that the intent of the TCA as enacted by Congress was to institute a framework to promote competition and innovation within the telecommunication industry. He said that local governments do not have to say “yes,” but they cannot say “no” without good reason. Mr. Parisi added that there has been ample case laws within NH that have determined the prohibited provisions of personal wireless services. He referenced city of Manchester, and how they had said no to a cell application and the government said that they could not just say “no.” Mr. Parisi said, “In a normal variance context, the standard is difficult to meet for a non-cellular application, the courts look at the topography, the terrain, the specific parcel of land, the rest of the zoning bylaw in
respect to visual buggers and setbacks. We look at not so much is there a hardship, but is there a gap in coverage? People have talked about it, the Fire and Police Chief have said it. There have been ample maps to show that there is a gap in coverage. Is there no viable alternative? Is this the least intrusive? There are not really any alternatives. There’s wetlands, residences, we need to be above the terrain to reach the desired coverage.”
Mr. Parisi asked the question out loud, “Can this be lowered?” Mr. Parisi pulled up a map that showed frequency coverage at 80ft 100ft, and 175ft. He then showed a map of coverage at 125ft, 145ft, and 170ft. He said that Mr. Lavin would discuss more in depth about it. Mr. Parisi said that the height is looked at from the center of the antenna. When the data that was submitted says 145ft, that means a structure of 150ft, because the antenna extends an additional 5ft. Mr. Parisi then referenced a separate slide that showed the population coverage based on building height, and the outdoor public safety element. He said that diminishing a tower from 145ft to 125ft, you lose 3% of the population coverage, and 5% in a rural system. Could we build a 150ft tower? Yes, but it not in the best interest of the town. There was a discussion of
coverage between the Board Members and Mr. Parisi on how to read the charts he had provided.
Mr. Parisi said that, “If the board wants to talk about a shorter tower, I believe it’s short sighted. We are building this based on AT&T, but with the intent of multiple carriers being added on. Given the distance and lack of visibility, we think 175ft is the best alternative for the best coverage and to build a structure that is accommodating to the future.” Mr. Parisi showed what 175ft and 150ft would look like, and pointed out that he did not see much of a difference. If they did reduce it to 150ft, then they could do a monopole tower. He then showed a photo of a monopole tower at 150ft. He does not think it’s the best alternative, and that it is short sighted. There will be a small gap that will never be filled by another tower, and that the board needs to deliberate on what is best for the town. The lack of visual impact
doesn’t show a big difference.
Chair McEwen asked to clarify, if they did a monopole tower, the coverage would decrease for each antenna moving down, correct? Mr. Parisi said yes, a monopole would decrease coverage as each antenna was put on going down. AT&T would be on top, and would have the best coverage on the monopole structure. 175ft accommodates everything, but if the board forces them to make it 150ft, then the carriers coverage goes down.
Mr. Parisi next mentioned the storm water calculation waiver, and that there is no nearby properties or storm water run-off that they can find.
Mr. Parisi said he believes he thinks they met all the recommendations and requirements for the 3 waivers that they think they actually need, and that he brought his specialist, Mr. Johnson, with him to help answer any questions.
Chair McEwen asked to be shown the map of coverage from the Pierce Lake tower. Mr. Parisi pulled it up, and they had a discussion of the coverage holes from the Pierce Lake tower. Chair McEwen said essentially at 175ft you would overlap and fill in coverage, but would you get it at 150ft? Mr. Parisi said that the 175ft would benefit Windsor more than Antrim in terms of filling in coverage. He pulled up and referenced a previous map he had shown.
Ms. Allen asked to clarify the coverage map she had, as it was different from the one on the slide. The Board members informed her that there were 2 separate maps that were sent to them, and that she had the one that showed 5 different heights with their coverage.
Mr. Holmes wanted to know where the information came for the population used on the charts they were provided. Mr. Lavin responded that he had used the 2010 census, as that was the most recent information on the population available. Mr. Lavin explained that most of the data is found using antennas within vehicles driving around the terrain to help make the numbers the most accurate.
Ms. Allen asked Mr. Parisi to go over the lay down variance again. Mr. Parisi pulled up the slide showing the proposed fall zone, and how Mr. Johnson had went over it and determined that Mr. Parisi had requested a waiver that was not necessary. There was a discussion between Mr. Parisi, Chair McEwen, and Ms. Rosansky on the tower height requirements for the fall zone. “The zoning bylaw says it differently, but it needs to be just 1x the height,” said Mr. Parisi. Ms. Allen said that the area where the tower base would be is the highest point on the property. Ms. Allen said she wanted to know if he had measurements between that point and the neighbors wall, if it is at least 175ft or is it more? Chair McEwen said she believes it is more, and that it was on the application. Mr. Parisi said the distance is 283ft, and it
is less than the 2x the height (350ft), so that was why they had initially requested a waiver.
Mr. MacDonald wanted to clarify that the fall zone falls completely within the property that the tower is being built on. Mr. Parisi responded, “yes.” Ms. Allen said she was glad that was clarified.
Chair McEwen informed the public that the Board had shared information amongst one another and the applicant that the members had found in doing their own research, and that if the public would like to see it they can. She added that it was not made public, as the public was capable of doing their own research as well.
Abutters:
Ms. Nelkens from Antrim, stated that Mr. Parisi said that he was in compliance with most of the things pointed out in regards to the migrant bird packet. Ms. Nelkens wanted to know what was he not in compliance with. Mr. Parisi said that it says you should try not to put a tower near a ridge, but they have to in order to get above the topography.
Ellen Blake from Windsor, said that there were 4 things that were being violated in terms of birds. She said that the lighting the tower would require is one of them. Mr. Parisi and Chair McEwen said that there was no lighting required. Mrs. Blake said she owns an airport strip in Windsor, and that how is there going to be no lighting near an airport? Mr. Parisi said that the FAA will determine if they need lights, but typically towers under 200ft do not require them. Mrs. Blake pointed out that the tower is near wetlands, the ridgeline, and in conservation area. Mr. Parisi said that he wanted to clarify that these are just suggestions, and not actual laws. He said that it is not near wetlands, by putting it on the ridge, they are not near the wetlands. Mr. Parisi once again explained that the Federal government
will determine if this application is in danger to migrant birds, and if it is, they can’t proceed. Mr. Parisi wanted to remind everyone that the Planning Board is not the Federal Government, and that it is not their jurisdiction to determine if there is an impact on a federal level, that’s the governments job. They are confident it is not impactive of migrant birds and will not be an issue, but if it is deemed so by the FDA once they are open again to do their study then they will not be able to build the tower.
Mr. Parisi and Chair McEwen had a discussion about migrant birds, and how they can settle on the tower and then they need to be cautious of the birds when they nest on the tower and that Mr. Parisi is fully aware that they have to have respect of the birds, and how it is a big topic.
Patricia Richardson, asked Mr. Parisi how high would a tower have to be to accommodate 5G. Mr. Parisi said it’s a technology, and it has nothing to do with tower height. Mr. Parisi explained that 5G is the future, and the electronics behind the signal. Mr. MacDonald added it is how it works. Mr. Parisi said that 5G will enable machines to talk to machines, and it’s a different data aspect. He said that the 5G standards have not been set yet, and that it is not anything dictating what we do, and if anything it will say we need more towers and infrastructures. Mr. Parisi mentioned driverless cars as an example, machines talking to machines. Ms. Richardson asked if the tower could accommodate 5G. Mr. Parisi responded and said that the application is for 4G. Ms. Richardson said that she wants to know if the tower
could accommodate 5G, and if by giving them a permit for 4G, will they be able to just build 5G off of that without returning to the board? Chair McEwen told Ms. Richardson that she believes Federally the Board cannot dictate on “if” the tower will become 5G, and 4G vs 5G. Chair McEwen verified this with Ms. Ogilvie.
Chair McEwen said that if no one else wished to speak, she would be closing the Public Hearing.
Gerry Needham, Selectman of Windsor. Mr. Needham said that he wanted to know why the project was not considered on Tuttle Hill instead, as the Antrim Wind project is already there so to him it would make sense to put everything of this nature in one spot. Chair McEwen said Mr. Parisi will explain that. Mr. Parisi explained there are several reasons, the wind turbines by being tall and made of metal are structural impediments to cell towers, so they can’t be anywhere near them. “We do not have access to that land, they bought it,” said Mr. Parisi. He added that the
applicant would not want access to it because there is not constructability there for them. Mr. Parisi said that Loverens Mill Rd had it already, and the owners had brought utilities already to the property on their own, so what they need is already there.
Chair McEwen asked if there was anyone else? No one responded. Chair McEwen said that if no one else had any questions, then someone needed to make a motion to close the Public Hearing. Ms. Blake said that she did not have any questions, but that she had a statement she wished to read.
Ellen Blake, Windsor Resident, read a statement from a piece of paper she had brought with her. She talked about when people first move to town, and how they pick the locations where they wish to live. She mentioned the promises that are made when they build their homes, and the ordinances that are written to protect those promises. She said that the Board is not only breaking 1 but they are breaking several promises within these ordinances. She told the board they are destroying the area, and that “if it was a dump going next to you, you wouldn’t want it.” She mentioned that cell towers do
not belong in the rural conservation district. She was against the cell tower, and brought up points in regards to the 13 abutters, and their property value, and how they will not be able to sell their houses after this tower is constructed, and that it isn’t fair. Ms. Blake said she found it hard to believe that there is no way to get cell service without violating the ordinance, “We put a man on the moon, there has got to be a way.” She told the board they need to be more concerned with people who it directly affects, for their safety, lifestyle, and financial security. She mentioned that AT&T has the most to gain from this, and that she has Verizon and lives in Windsor and she has sell service.
Chair McEwen said that this was discussed at the last meeting, that they can not determine what companies are allowed to have service in the area or not, and that the tower would accommodate multiple carriers. Chair McEwen asked Ms. Blake if she had any other points, because a cell tower is permitted use in the rural conservation district. Ms. Blake interrupted and said, “Not at that height it’s not.” Chair McEwen said that it is permitted use for a cell tower, and that the waivers for height are a separate matter. Chair McEwen also told Ms. Blake that none of the abutters except for 1 from Antrim spoke in opposition, and that his comment was not involving the value of his property. Chair McEwen asked Ms. Blake if she lived near the proposed tower. Ms. Blake said no, she lived in Windsor, but was concerned about
seeing the tower lit up at night, and didn’t want to see it from Black Pond. Ms. Blake said she would hate to look up and see a tower.
Chair McEwen asked Ms. Blake if she had seen the visual demonstration done. Ms. Blake said she did not, but that she was not properly notified of the visual demonstration. She said she found out 2 days before, she drove up and couldn’t see it but didn’t know where to look, there were no signs, and it was extremely windy. She said she couldn’t see it because she didn’t know where to look. Chair McEwen said she drove up Loverens Mill Rd herself as well and didn’t see it, and that Mr. Holmes could see it from his house. Ms. Blake said that no one looked at it from Windsor though, and that Windsor is going to see it.
There was also a conversation between Ms. Blake and Ms. Brudnick-Destromp, when Ms. Blake said that she wasn’t given proper notice of the visual demonstration because she is a Windsor resident, and not Antrim. Ms. Brudnick-Destromp informed her that the notice of the 1st public hearing, and the visual demonstration were posted on the Town of Antrim website, on Facebook, at the Antrim Post Office, inside and outside of Antrim Town hall, that the abutters all received certified notification of both, and that every Selectboard within 20 miles received notification by mail per state law. Ms. Blake once again said that she is not a resident of Antrim, and that she didn’t receive notification of any of this until last week. Ms. Brudnick-Destromp informed her that the Windsor Selectboard received notification,
and it is not this Planning Board’s issue if her Selectboard did not notify her. Ms. Blake thanked the Board for hearing her this evening. Chair McEwen asked Ms. Blake to provide Ms. Brudnick-Destromp the paper she was reading from. She declined, and took the paper with her. Ms. Brudnick-Destromp informed her that, it was recorded anyways, and that she will just get the information from the recording for the minutes.
Chair McEwen asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak, she asked a Ms. Hebert if she had a question, as her hand had been raised during Ms. Blakes speech. Ms. Hebert said no, her question had been answered.
Motion: Mr. Condon motioned to close the public hearing, Mr. MacDonald second it.
Vote: By a voice vote, all were in favor.
VI. Deliberations:
Chair McEwen said that Ms. Ogilvie had given the name of a 3rd party consultant after the Chair had asked her if she knew one. She read an email between herself and the consultant, where she mentioned the Board had a meeting on 1/17/19, and what would be the turn around time if they had another meeting on 1/31/19, if he would be able to provide a report back in time for that proposed date. She also wanted him to able to provide background information on his experience for the Board and the Applicant.
Chair McEwen mentioned that the applicant is not asking for variances, but for waivers, and how they are slightly different. Chair McEwen wanted the board to go through each waiver one at a time and discuss.
Mr. Condon wanted to know if they should determine first if they need the 3rd party consultant prior to deliberation? Mr. MacDonald said yes, we should determine if we need to do it initially. Ms. Rosansky said she did not know what questions the consultant would even answer. Chair McEwen explained to Ms. Rosansky that she wanted to verify if the information was accurate with cell tower heights, styles of towers, ect.
Mr. Condon said, “why don’t we vote to engage the consultant, and as we go through each of the waivers, note questions that would be asked to the consultant, and vote on those questions at the end.”
Motion: Mr. Condon made a motion to engage the consultant Chair McEwen referenced to answer the questions that we will be determined as we go through the waivers at the expense of the applicant.
Mr. Parisi said that because the public hearing was closed, so no new information can be submitted. Mr. Parisi said that the applicant does not have to pay for a consultant that they can’t communicate or correspond with. Chair McEwen said it is in their ordinance, Mr. MacDonald agreed with the Chair. Mr. Parisi said it is in the ordinance, but the public hearing is closed. Chair McEwen said that might be an issue, but they will address it, and that the board had not said anything about the applicant not communicating with the 3rd party consultant. Chair McEwen asked Ms. Ogilvie if Mr. Parisi was correct. Ms. Ogilvie said you can allow other people to speak if you feel you need more information in order to make a decision. She said Mr. Parisi is not wrong in that sense, but the simplest thing is to vote to
re-open the public hearing for the purpose of accepting new testimony from a consultant if that is what they decide they want to do. Ms. Ogilvie also said that the Board will also give Mr. Parisi time to respond to the information as well during the public hearing.
Chair McEwen asked Mr. Parisi if that is what he wanted to do, re open the public hearing. Chair McEwen and Mr. Condon clarified with Ms. Ogilvie if it needed to be re-opened now, or at the point of receiving the report back from the 3rd party consultant. Ms. Ogilvie said you do not have to do it now, but the simplest thing is to re-open the public hearing tonight and to continue it so there are no issues.
Mr. Condon asked if they should hold off on deliberations until they receive a report from a 3rd party consultant. Ms. Ogilvie said that it would be the safest thing to do. Ms. Ogilvie said that if you start discussing the waivers and have questions, then you definitely need to re-open the public hearing
Chair McEwen and Ms. Ogilvie had a small discussion about the waivers, and if it would be best to re-open public hearing or to go through the waivers, and if there needed to be re notification done at all. Ms. Ogilvie said she suggested they reopen the public hearing tonight.
Motion: Mr. Holmes made a motion to re-open the public hearing, Mr. Condon second it.
There was no discussion
Vote: By a voice vote, all were in favor
Mr. MacDonald read from the zoning ordinance the excerpt that the applicant would have to pay for the 3rd party consultant. Ms. Rosansky said we would be asking the consultant to confirm and verify the technical information already submitted to the board.
Motion: Mr. Condon said that he wanted to make a motion to engage the consultant to verify the information as presented by the applicant and answer any specific questions that may come up tonight after reviewing the waivers at the expense of the applicant.
Ms. Rosansky verified that the waiver for the fall zone was removed.
Mr. MacDonald seconded Mr. Condon’s motion.
Discussion: Mr. Holmes asked if we are going to generate questions, or just start talking about the waivers?
Chair McEwen asked Ms. Ogilvie if reviewing the waivers can be part of the public hearing? She said yes. Ms. Ogilvie said the information from the consultant is not necessarily new information, but confirmation that the information from the applicant is correct, and getting an opinion of verification.
Chair McEwen informed Mr. Parisi that the public hearing is re open so there will be no contesting of that point.
Mr. Holmes brought up the point of giving the applicant enough time to review the consultant’s report. Chair McEwen said that they could not review the information on the 31st unless the consultant has provided a report to the Board in time to give the applicant proper time to review on their end. Chair McEwen said because Ms. Brudnick-Destromp wil not be here on February 7th, 2019, (when the next scheduled meeting would have been,) she wanted to hold a meeting on the 31st if everything is back in time.
Chair McEwen asked Mr. Parisi how many days he would need to respond to a report. Mr. Parisi said if he could get the report within a week, that would be enough time. Chair McEwen said she will try, and if they cannot, they will not have a meeting on the 31st and she will just have to get someone else to record the minutes on February 7th.
Mr. Parisi said there are 2 other issues. Mr. Parisi said that they do not have to pay for the consultant unless the scope is in the area of expertise, and the that fee is reasonable. Chair McEwen relayed what Mr. Parisi said to Ms. Ogilvie, Ms. Ogilvie said that she thinks that is legitimate. Mr. Parisi just wanted to make sure it was somebody qualified and reasonable. Mr. Parisi said he also agreed that the board should go through the waivers and form their questions. Chair McEwen said that the process will be delayed 3 weeks, and Mr. Parisi asked why? Chair McEwen explained that she would need to get a fee structure first that was approved by Mr. Parisi, then she needs to give the consultant the information he needs, give him time to review it and send a report back, and then the applicant needs a week on their end to
review as well. Chair McEwen said that these are the applicants choices, but if there is a delay then Mr. Parisi will need to deal with it.
Mr. Parisi and Chair McEwen had a discussion on the Pierce Lake application, the 1st Planning Board meeting on this application and how he believes a consultant should have been mentioned then. Mr. Parisi also mentioned how he believed the Chair had a conversation already with the consultant, and that it is public knowledge that was not shared. Chair McEwen said that the possibility of hiring a consultant had been mentioned at previous meetings. She mentioned it at the beginning of this meeting, and she also told Mr. Parisi that he would be able to speak directly to the consultant. The Chair said that the Board was more than happy to comply with Mr. Parisi. Mr. Parisi wanted to know the cost of the consultant, Chair McEwen said that they had not had the opportunity to ask the consultant yet, they did not get
that far. The Chair apologized for being short tempered, but she had hoped to get through the waivers tonight, and now they are re-opening the public hearing and delaying the process of discussing the waivers.
Motion: Mr. Holmes said he did not feel comfortable continuing the public hearing, where at this point the public has left, and that he wanted to make a motion to continue the public hearing for January 31st, 2019.
Chair McEwen said that without doing the waivers, they will not have specific questions, and wanted to make sure everyone was aware and comfortable with that.
Mr. Condon said that he is comfortable with the motion, because he isn’t sure they would have had specific questions anyways after reviewing the waivers.
Ms. Allen second Mr. Holmes motion.
Discussion: Ms. Allen said it would be helpful to come back on the 31st with questions. Mr. Holmes said they would also have the prices as well. Ms. Rosansky said that it is impossible to get a fee schedule without knowing what is going to be asked of the consultant to review, where we do not have questions, we can’t move forward until we know what “it” is. Mr. MacDonald said if this person is experience, we should be able to get a rough idea. Ms. Rosansky was against what Mr. MacDonald said. Mr. Condon said that he doesn’t think they need to re submit the motion, and that if the Board feels they need to go back to the consultant, they can go back with specific questions at that
point.
Mr. MacDonald said the bylaw is an evaluation of the application as it stands, so Mr. Condon is correct.
Chair McEwen asked Ms. Ogilvie if, at this point, if they send everything to the consultant with the list of specific waivers if that will be enough. The Chair wanted to know if this was the best way to do everything. Ms. Ogilvie said that the important question for the consultant will be the height, but she said yes.
The Chair asked Ms. Ogilvie if she had any insight on the consultant. Ms. Ogilvie said she has never worked with him herself, she reached out to someone in the business who recommended him. He was hired in the past to find out where in the town of Harrisville to locate areas to get the best coverage for a cell tower.
There was a discussion between Chair McEwen, Mr. Holmes, Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Condon regarding making a motion. Mr. Condon said that the motion was already stated to hire a 3rd party consultant. The Chair said it needed to be voted on still. Mr. Condon said that the motion was made and voted on, and that Mr. MacDonald had seconded it.
Vote: The board took a vote on the motion Mr. Holmes had made in regards to continuing the public hearing to January 31st, 2019, and Ms. Allen had second it earlier.
Mr. Parisi asked what was going to happen between now and the next meeting. The Chair said she was going to provide Mr. Parisi with the email and contact information for the consultant, she was going to get the fee schedule, provide him with the entire packet and all 5 origionaly requested waivers. He is going to look at it, you are going to determine if he has the expertise. Mr. Parisi said that was fine.
By a voice vote, all were in favor.
Meeting Adjourned: ~ Mr. MacDonald made a motion to end the meeting at 9:01pm , Mr. Holmes second it.
By a voice vote, all agreed
Respectfully Submitted,
Ashley Brudnick-Destromp
(Assistant to Land Use Boards)
| 
