ANTRIM PLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting
January 31st, 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), and Steve
MacDonald (Alternate)
Members Absent: Lynne Rosansky (Member)
Others Present: Francis Parisi (Parisi Law Associates, LLC), Kevin Mason (SAI and AT&T), Michael Pon (Reporter), Nick Handy (Ledger Trans), William K. Fluhr (Antrim), Kris Nesheim, and Leigh Bosse (Antrim),
CTO: Chair McEwen called the meeting to order at 6:58PM.
I. Minutes:
Review: Chair McEwen asked the Board to review the minutes from 1/17/19.
Motion: Mr. Robertson made a motion to review the minute, Ms. Allen second it.
Discussion: Mr. Holmes had one correction to make.
Motion: Mr. Holmes made a motion to accept the minutes as amended, Mr. Robertson second it.
Vote: By a voice vote, all were in favor.
II. Planning Assistant Report
Ms. Brudnick-Destromp informed the board that the 2018-2019 SWRPC Manuals have arrived, and gave each member a copy.
Ms. Brudnick-Destromp informed the board at the last meeting, a motion was made and was second regarding hiring a 3rd party consultant to review the application at the expense of the applicant. The Chair had mentioned at the end of the meeting that it was never voted on, but was told by several members that it had been. After listening to the recording, it was in fact never voted on, and the Chair was correct. Mr. Condon had made the motion, Mr. MacDonald second it, but then a discussion ensued and it was never voted on. All other motions were fine. She added that she had verified with Ms. Ogilvie, and she confirmed it is acceptable to vote on it tonight.
Ms. Brudnick-Destromp reminded the board she will not be here Thursday February 7th, 2019 when the next meeting is scheduled. She asked the board if they wanted her to prepare everything for a meeting, or if they would prefer to reschedule and have her post notification that the next meeting will be February 21st.
Ms. Brudnick-Destromp informed that board that Chris Lucas from Lucas Environmental had called regarding the Federal level check that the proposed cell tower has to go through. He informed her that the process has started now that the federal government is back up and running, and that he will be sending an official letter to the office asking for concerns so that he can address them. Ms. Brudnick-Destromp informed the board that Mr. Lucas had asked her if there was anything specific that she knew at the moment. Ms. Brudnick-Destromp said she informed Mr. Lucas that the 2 big things where the height of the cell tower, and the impact on migrant birds. Mr. Lucas and Ms. Brudnick-Destromp had a discussion, and he informed her that anything under 200ft is not considered tall in their eyes. He also informed her that lattice tower structures are
actually beneficial to migrant birds because they provide nesting areas, as apposed to a monopole structure does not. He had explained to her that people are anti-lattice structure because of an incident in California years ago, where they put turbines on top of lattice structures for wind energy, and it caused a slaughter of migrants birds because they were nesting in the structure, and they dying trying to get back to the nest. He also informed her that he can not complete his report until the Spring time due to the snow on the ground, and that he would be reaching out to the historical society as well, and that he is well aware of the grave site and that will be in his report. Ms. Brudnick-Destromp explained that Mr. Lucas said he just wanted to introduce himself over the phone to her prior to sending on a letter.
Ms. Brudnick-Destromp said that Mr. Leigh Bosse came in and spoke to her who is present tonight. He is looking to sell tax map 220 lot 32, which is part of a subdivision he had done back in 2006-2008 with the Planning Board approval. The deed for this land clearly states it cannot be sold unless he has written approval from the Planning Board. The Planning Board cannot give approval unless the conditions of the subdivision plan have been met. Ms. Brudnick-Destromp informed the board that the paper file is missing. When she pulled it, there was a single page document in it that said it had been moved, and when she went to find it, it wasn’t there either. She did tell the board that this file is also done electronically, so she still has access to all documents pertaining to it, and had sent them to Ms. Ogilvie for review. The Chair and Ms.
Brudnick-Destromp had reviewed the Planning Board minutes also pertaining to this, and it appears from what the 3 of them have gathered, that the conditions where not met, and that the subdivision was almost revoked. Ms. Brudnick-Destromp said it has been suggested by Ms. Ogilvie that the Board has legal counsel review this.
Ms. Brudnick-Destromp informed the board that the 25th annual Spring Planning and Zoning Conference is going to be held Saturday June 1st, 2019. Registration is until March 2019, but she wanted to give them a heads up so they could save the date.
Chair McEwen said that she met with conservation commission, and that she would be continuing communication with them regarding an upcoming meeting.
Ms. Brudnick-Destromp said that concluded her Planning Assistant Report, and because she already spoke of the candidates for the Planning Board, they could skip over that section.
III. CBS Holdings, LLC.
Chair McEwen asked Mr. Leigh Bosse to speak next. Mr. Bosse introduced himself and explained that he was one of the 3 parties in the subdivision, CBS Holdings LLC. Mr. Bosse said that under condition 5 of the subdivision agreement, it says he can not sell the land until there is a letter from Planning Board stating he has met all the terms of the agreement for his subdivision approval back in 2006. Mr. Bosse explained that they had done an application back in 2006 for approval of a subdivision that was approved, and in 2008 it was added on to the deed of the property that he has to meet all the requirements prior to sell. Mr. Bosse explained that they are selling it to a couple from CT who are cash buyers, and that they wish to put a single family home on the property, and leave all the other land in current use. Mr. Bosse added that the new
owners would not be doing a subdivision.
The Chair asked if it was a title search that brought this issue to light. Mr. Bosse said it was.
Mr. Macdonald asked if it was already subdivided, and Mr. Bosse responded, “yes.”
The Chair wants the Town’s attorney to review it just to make sure there is no other concerns.
The Chair said she did not want to vote on it tonight, but is much more relieved that everything is being merged together because it was so long ago. Mr. Bosse said he would not have been able to sell it as a subdivision currently.
The Chair informed Mr. Bosse that the Board will try and expedite it, since there is a cash buyer and the closing was supposed to be today, 1/31/19.
IV. Re-Opened Public Hearing:
The Chair said that the consultant report had come back from the 3rd party consultant, and that Mr. Parisi had received it as well.
Motion: Mr. Condon said he wanted to vote on the motion made last time to hire a 3rd party consultant at the expense of the applicant,
Ms. Brudnick-Destromp re-stated the motion Mr. Condon had made at the last meeting, and stated that Mr. MacDonald had already second it.
Vote: by a voice vote all were in favor.
Mr. Holmes asked if Mr. MacDonald needed to be appointed to replace Mr. Bryk. Chair McEwen said she had permanently done so at the last meeting.
Public hearing:
Mr. Parisi said that quite frankly, they had no major issues with the report done by the 3rd party consultant, Mr. Goldstein.
Mr. MacDonald had a question about the MHz (mega hertz), and if those were determined by the carriers. Mr. Parisi said those are the frequencies allocated by each individual carrier, and that AT&T has some in the 700 band, and some in the 1900 band.
Ms. Ogilvie was phone conferenced in at 7:15Pm.
Chair McEwen asked Ms. Ogilvie what her opinion was about Mr. Goldstein’s review. Ms. Ogilvie said she felt that he responded well, and answered questions, and that he hit the main points that had still been on the table.
Ms. Allen said she had a question about page 9 of the report. It referenced that, “while the applicant would like a 175ft tower, waiving the 150 foot limit does not appear to be necessary in order to meet the primary objective.” Ms. Brudnick-Destromp said she felt that it was a typo, and the consultant meant to say 100ft because that is what the zoning ordinance is. Chair McEwen said that she had specifically told him that the zoning ordinance was 100ft, and not 150ft, as he has made that mistake before with her. Mr. Robertson said that he interpreted it that the consultant was saying that there was not a big difference between 175ft and 150ft.
Ms. Allen said that he even referenced 131ft, and that she was concerned that he was not taking into consideration the towns zoning ordinance being 100ft. Mr. Robertson and Chair McEwen said that they did not believe that was the case. That he is entitled to an opinion as a consultant, but that what he was trying to say is that it could be shorter then the 175ft proposal.
There was a conversation between Chair McEwen, Ms. Allen, Mr. Parisi, and Mr. Robertson. Ms. Allen said that she thought there were 4 co-locatives going on the tower. Both Mr. Parisi and Chair McEwen said no, it is 5, and always has been 5. The general interpretation of Mr. Robertson and Chair McEwen is that the consultant was saying that there would not be a difference for AT&T’s frequency by reducing the tower height, but it does not mean the other 4 wouldn’t be affected.
Mr. Condon said that the cell tower ordinance was written at a different time, with different technology. Mr. Condon said that the ordinance needs to be updated, if the applications for cell towers continue to come in, it needs to be changed.
Mr. Pattison (Antrim Resident) asked, “What is the average cell tower height?” Mr. Parisi responded that it’s roughly 150-175ft. Mr. Parisi added that it might go to 180-190ft, but nothing goes over 200ft that their company does. There was a conversation between Chair McEwen, Mr. MacDonald, and Mr. Pattison about the cell tower on Pierce Lake, and how you can only see it from the opposite side of the like according to them.
Mr. Condon asked Mr. Parisi if a height of 150ft would limit them to 4 co-locations instead of 5. Mr. Parisi said there is no definitive answer, they could live at 150 but where the technology changes so rapidly, the size of the antennas changes, it could change the amount of co-locations.
Mr. MacDonald wanted to know about the speed, and the foliage. Mr. Parisi said at 100ft you are barely above the trees, so the foliage becomes impediment to the frequency. The denser the foliage, the harder to pass a frequency. Mr. Parisi added that a 100ft tower is completely un-technically feasible. Mr. MacDonald said that the foliage was not a significant problem when the MHz are in the 700 range. The AT&T engineer, Mr. Mason, had a conversation with Mr. MacDonald regarding the impact of foliage on MHz. Mr. Mason said the difference between 700MHz vs 1900MHz. is a huge impact, and that if they were doing 1900MHz, they would not even do it here, “the 700MHz is what driving things here.”
Mr. Pattison said that the difference between 150ft to 175ft makes it less attractive to sell the other carriers. Does it give future proofing for 15 years down the line for when 6G would come out? Mr. Mason said the physics don’t change, but the technology does. Mr. Pattison asked if it was built at 150ft, would it limit 6G in the future, and does the height of the tower affect that? Mr. Mason, Mr. Condon, and Chair McEwen had a conversation, and Mr. Mason said that it’s basically the size of the antennas that determine if they will fit or not, and we just won’t know. The antennas are getting bigger. Mr. Parisi said the antennas are incorporating more electronics in them now, so they are getting bigger. Mr. Pattison said that essentially 175ft is more future proof, Mr. Parisi said that is correct.
Chair McEwen said that there is normally a geotechnical study submitted with the application, but this application did not have one. Mr. Parisi said it is very invasive, and we generally do not do it until we get approved by the Planning Board or Zoning Board of Adjustments because it might make them do road work. Mr. Parisi added that from a town perspective, it does not matter, because it is a building inspector issue in terms of depth of the foundation. Chair McEwen had asked who has to blast for these? Mr. Parisi said sometimes they do, if they do, it is not significant like the current blasting that is being done in town, but they would get all the property authorities involved. Mr. Parisi and Chair McEwen discussed the minimum distance from residence for blasting. Mr. Pattison also asked Mr. Parisi about the road. Mr. Parisi said the
road they will have is nothing compared to the one done for Antrim Wind.
There was a conversation between Chair McEwen, Ms. Allen, and Mr. Parisi regarding the one spot where there won’t be coverage. Mr. Parisi said it doesn’t mean that there will not be any signal, but that it will not be reliable.
There was a discussion of the terrain of the area between Mr. MacDonald and Ms. Allen, and how much it affects the frequency.
Mr. Fleur wanted to know how many potential carries would be put on. Mr. Mason said 5. Mr. Fleur asked that if it was shorter, would that jeopardize there being 5 carriers? Mr. Mason said, “It’s tough to say, everyone would rather be 20ft higher.”
Ms. Brudnick-Destromp asked Mr. Parisi if since the application process had started, if Vertex Towers was officially under contract with anyone else other than AT&T? Mr. Parisi said that they were in talks with Verizon already, and plan that if it is built, they will be on the tower quickly. He said that US Cellular will not even talk to him until it is physically built, and that he expects TMobile and Sprint to be on the 2nd half of the year.
Mr. Fleur asked that the earlier you are in on the contract for the tower, the higher up your antenna will be? Mr. Parisi said yes, that is how it works.
Mr. Holmes wanted to know the dimensions at the base and top for a 175ft tower built lattice structure, vs a 150ft tower built monopole. Mr. Parisi said that he had received this questions earlier from Ms. Brudnick-Destromp, and produced a slide that compared a 150ft lattice tower, a 150ft monopole, and a 175ft lattice tower.
Ms. Allen asked Mr. Parisi that if the board limits it to 150ft, what style structure they would be building? Mr. Parisi said they would still prefer to build it lattice, but will do what the board wishes, but that they don’t want to go down to 150ft. Mr. Parisi said the lattice structure is more accommodating for the future, monopole is for today, and it’s almost impossible to change it once it is built. He added that a lattice tower can be changed structurally if you need to.
Mr. Condon said that in his opinion, a monopole would be more visible then lattice. Mr. Parisi said that he expects once it is built, no one will be able to see it and know the difference.
Chair McEwen asked if anyone else had any questions before closing the public hearing, and explained the process. No one said anything.
Chair McEwen closed the Public Hearing at 7:52PM.
V. Deliberations:
Mr. Condon asked Ms. Ogilvie, “if when it comes to voting on the waivers individually for acceptance, do we vote on each waiver first, and the vote for approval?” Ms. Ogilvie said that the best way is to do it is in that order.
Chair McEwen said the first variance was cell tower height. Mr. Holmes said he wanted to say that he wanted to make sure that the board was all on the same page. Mr. Holmes said when the ZBA approved the variances for the Pierce Lake cell tower, they used 5 standards, and that the Board would be remiss if they did not also use these standards as guides, even though the ZBA has stricter standards when granting a variance. Mr. Holmes also mentioned that any rulings should be based on the intent of the ordinance. He then read the 5 guidelines per the request of the chair. (A copy is attached to this set of minutes.)
Chair McEwen asked if everyone agreed to discuss height first, the board agreed.
Mr. Robertson said he wants to make sure people are as successful as can be, and since the approval of the 150ft tower on Greg Lake, the technology has increased since then. He concluded that he would approve the 175ft if the rest of the Board agreed to it.
Mr. Holmes said the co-location works for both the town and the company. “We do not want to have to put another cell tower in the area to cover the holes,” Mr. Holmes said. He added that the boards job is not just to look now, but down the road, and we need to incorporate the future into our decision.
Mr. Condon said that as someone who lives and works with technology, he prefers to future proof things the best they can. Mr. Condon said that if the board feels that 175ft is the best for the long term, he is fine with that. If the board decides on 150ft, he will not fight that decision, but 175ft is preferable especially from the visual studies.
Chair McEwen said that 150ft is already a set precedence. Chair McEwen said, “I hate to set a new one, but I do agree that from that distance from the road it probably won’t be that much noticeable. It deviates from our ordinance, but they are not up to date, and both parties indicated that 150ft is livable, but 175ft make sense for changes in the future. If the board agrees, 175ft is not outrageous.”
Ms. Allen said that she agrees that at some point we need to take a look at the Zoning Ordinance, and see if that is where Antrim should be. Ms. Allen said, “We already granted 1 150ft, add now we are being asked again. We need to do some work in that part. What we have right now is the voter’s intent, and I’m weighing that against the use maps. I was impressed by the consultant’s report, and I’m seeing from the report, the coverage area on Route 9 would be fine at 131ft. I would… could be persuaded to 150ft, but I’m not going on 150ft, so it would be a no vote from me for that. I do think that we need to revisit this, as technology is coming in the future and we need to get our zoning ordinance in line. I do not think there is any justification for going above 150ft.”
Mr. MacDonald said the beginning of the zoning ordinance for cell towers goes back nearly 20 years. He said, “It was the beginning of Antrim’s consideration of cell towers and what needed to be done, and most of it is well in the past. Things have changed significantly, and we haven’t kept up, and we are behind the curve. I also think that it was clear that the voters do not want cell towers here there and everywhere. If we can approve a tower that supports more carriers then fewer, that may be a good indicator we will not have more towers. I would like to see that it accommodates the ordinance, but it’s not reasonable in this case, and where things have changed so much, the voters would understand that. I support a 175ft tower.”
Motion: Mr. Condon made a motion to grant the waiver for 175ft, Mr. Holmes second it.
Vote: by a voice vote, all were in favor except Ms. Allen, who voted No.
There was a discussion how the tree canopy waiver is null and void at this point, but they still need to vote on it.
Motion: Mr. Robertson made a motion to approve the waiver for projected height greater then 20ft above the tree canopy, Mr. Holmes second it.
Vote: by a voice vote, all were in favor except Ms. Allen who abstained.
There was a discussion where Ms. Allen thinks that the waiver for fall zone should be withdrawn, because they determined that it wasn’t applicable at the last meeting. Ms. Ogilvie said she thought Mr. Parisi had already withdrawn, but if not, the board can vote that the waiver is not applicable. No additional paperwork would need to be filed then. Ms. Ogilvie said it should be voted on though because it was part of the application.
Motion: Mr. Condon made a motion to consider the request of the waiver for the fall zone be not applicable, Mr. Holmes second it.
Vote: by a voice vote, all were in favor.
Antenna types and diameter was the next waiver. Mr. MacDonald said that the 3rd party consultant said on the last page of the report, that there is no way that a full coverage mobile tower can operate within a 4’ diameter, and therefore it should be removed. Ms. Allen said she agreed, but is there a limit? Mr. Parisi said that he would approve the plans at 12ft, and we can put a limit that is shown in the plans. Mr. Holmes said a condition can be made at the end.
Motion: Mr. Homes made a motion to grant the waiver for the antenna to exceed 4 feet in diameter, Mr. Robertson second it.
Vote: by a voice vote all agreed
The Chair said because we are approving 175ft for height, then we are approving a lattice structure automatically because a monopole can only be done at 150ft or less in height.
Motion: Mr. Condon said he would like to make a motion to grant a waiver for a lattice type tower, Mr. Holmes second it.
Vote: by a voice vote, all were in favor except Ms. Allen, who voted no.
VI. Conditions:
Mr. Condon said he would like the Board to come up and agree with the conditions together.
There was a long discussion between the Board members and Mr. Parisi while the Board drafted their conditions.
It was determined amongst all parties that if any conditions are not met without making changes, then they need to come back for an amendment time plan.
Chair McEwen asked the board if they had questions about the design plan. No one had any questions. Mr. Holmes had a question about bonding. Mr. Parisi said they would agree to whatever they imposed. Mr. Parisi explained he can get a letter from 2 contractors to give what the estimate would be for removal. Mr. Holmes said the ordinance said the bond is the cost of the removal + 15%.
Ms. Ogilvie said that the 2 comments from the SWRPC review, the tracking apron, and maintaining proper sight lines needed to be addressed. The Board and Ms. Ogilvie determined that both would be through the Road Agent. Mr. Holmes mentioned the tree that the Road Agent had mentioned in his department review as well needed to be added.
Motion: Mr. Condon made a motion to make a condition that the antennas will not exceed a size greater then shown on the plans. Mr. Holmes second it.
Vote: by a voice vote, all were in favor except Ms. Allen who abstained.
Motion: Mr. Condon made a motion that the gravesite be protected as described in the amended plan. Mr. Robertson second.
Vote: by a voice vote, all were in favor
Motion: Mr. Condon made a motion that as a condition of this application that the applicant provides copies of any federally required studies to the Town and the Planning Board. Mr. Holmes second it.
Vote: by a voice vote all were in favor
Motion: Mr. Condon made a motion that the applicant, as a condition of approval, follows the recommended best practices for communication tower design, siting, construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning, as outlined in the Division of Migratory Bird Management. Mr. Holmes Second it.
Vote: by a voice vote, all were in favor.
Motion: Mr. Holmes made a motion that the Road Agent approve the access to the site for access by safety and emergency vehicles. Mr. Condon second it
Vote: by a voice vote, all agreed.
Motion: Mr. Condon made a motion that the applicant provide keys to emergency services for any gates at that tower site, or on the access road. Mr. Holmes second it.
Vote: by a voice vote, all were in favor.
Motion: Mr. Condon made a motion that the applicant provides a removal bond in an amount equal to the cost of removal as certified by a professional engineer plus 15%. Mr. Homes second it.
Vote: by a voice vote all agreed.
Motion: Mr. Condon made motion that the applicant will provide a copy of the easement deed as a condition. Mr. Holmes second it.
Vote: by a voice vote, all were in favor.
Motion: Mr. Condon made a motion that that the recommendations made by the SWRPC and the Road Agent be incorporated into the final notice of decision. Mr. Holmes second it.
Vote: by a voice vote, all were in favor.
Motion: Mr. Condon made a motion that the applicant will provide space on the tower for all emergency services free of charge, subject to a standard public safety agreement. Mr. Holmes second it.
Vote: by a voice vote all are in favor.
Motion: The Chair said this will be reviewed by Ms. Ogilvie for language, and counsel, prior to approving. Mr. Condon wanted to know if they could do a conditional approval tonight. Ms. Ogilvie said yes, because if the town attorney suggests changes, you will have the ability to do that. Conditional upon review by town attorney, and once that is back, you can take a final vote. Mr. Condon said “so moved” Mr. Holmes second it.
Vote: by a voice vote, all agreed.
Mr. Parisi said the conditional use permit was requested, so the conditional use permit should be voted to approve, subject to approval by the town attorney. The Chair said the conditions and the site plan could be approved tonight, but is subject to approval by Ms. Ogilvie and the town attorney.
Motion: Mr. Condon made a motion to resend the previous motion. Mr. MacDonald second it.
Motion:Mr. Condon made a motion to conditionally approve the application for the conditional use permit and major site plan, subject to review by the planning consultant and the town attorney. Mr. MacDonald second it.
Roll Call Vote: Mr. Robertson, “Yes,” Mr. Holmes, “Yes,” Mr. Condon, “Yes,” Chair McEwen, “Yes,” Ms. Allen, “No,” and Mr. MacDonald, “Yes.”
The application was approved.
Chair McEwen spoke to Ms. Ogilvie regarding the land Mr. Bosse was looking to sell. Chair McEwen said that they are not looking to do a subdivision, but to build a singular home and keep the rest of the land in current use. Ms. Ogilvie said she needs to review the information. The applicant wants the condition taken away, so you will need the towns attorney to come up with the language. Ms. Ogilvie said she does not know if there needs to be a public meeting to amend it, or if the Board can just do it, that is something the town’s attorney will have to determine. The Chair said she is trying to expedite it, because it’s a cash buyer and they are trying to get this done for him. Mr. Bosse spoke to Ms. Ogilvie, he said he thought that he just needed a letter from the Planning Board saying that the application is being recended by the
Planning Board. Chair McEwen said she will speak to the attorney on Monday, she asked Mr. Bosse if it was ok to send a copy of the purchase and sale to the attorney, he said that is fine. Chair McEwen and Mr. Bosse spoke about a deed for the new owners, and if by creating a deed that says the new property owners need to merge the lots, if that might accomplish it. Mr. Bosse said he will check with his attorney.
Meeting Adjourned: ~ Mr. MacDonald made a motion to end the meeting at 9:24pm , Mr. Holmes second it.
By a voice vote, all agreed
Respectfully Submitted,
Ashley Brudnick-Destromp
(Assistant to Land Use Boards)
| 
