Becket Planning Board
Approved Meeting Minutes
Wednesday , May 12th, 2010
Planning Board Members Present: Gale LaBelle, Martin Schlanger, Barbara Stuhlman, Ann Krawet, Bob Podolski., Stanley Oransky.
Planning Board Members Absent: None
Members of the public present: Charles Ferris, Christian Rohosz, Rob Gorden, Joshua Lombard, Donald Munger, Susan Purser, Brandi Newman, George Fuller, Robert Ronzio.
Meeting called to order: 7:00 pm
Review and acceptance of Meeting Minutes from Wednesday, April 20th, 2010- Martin Schlanger makes a motion to accept meeting minutes as presented, Robert Podolski seconds motion; Unanimous Approval.
Continued Deliberations for Mariner Tower Application, request for a Special Permit; proposed location of cell tower is 0 Wade Inn Road, Assessor map 413 Lot 114.
Ms. LaBelle opens by asking the board if they have any questions or concerns that they would like to share. Ms. Krawet asks if Mariner is committed to leaving space on top of tower. Mr. Podolski explains that yes, there are room for five more antenna. Ms. Krawet then asks if the electromagnetic radiation will be monitored and will a report be submitted? Ms. LaBelle assures Ms. Krawet that the FCC takes care of all that. Ms.LaBelle asks board members if they feel ready to vote on the application tonight, hearing “yes” from all present, Ms. LaBelle polls board for a vote.
Martin Schlanger- I have reviewed the remarks and concerns of those that attended the many hearings that were held relating to the Mariner Tower II request to build a wireless Communications Facility off of Cross Road in Becket, Ma. I have read the responses that Mariner Tower II has submitted in response to the many questions that came up in these hearings. In addition, I have reviewed the input of Mark Hutchins, a radio frequency engineer and consultant to the Becket Planning Board.
The opposition to the construction of the wireless communication facility raised many concerns and fears to those voicing them and to some extent seemed to have some merit. For the most part, they dealt with radio frequency effects on honey bees, human exposure, and other wild life. On “the town may not…..regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions
To the extent that such facilities comply with the federal Communication Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions” In addition, the applicant presented a statement of compliance that exposure will be significantly below the Maximum Permissible Exposure guidelines set by the FCC.
Cell phone usage has become a way of life in the United States as well as throughout the world . If the Town of Becket is to attract new businesses as well as new residents, it is of great importance that our community has this coverage. The need becomes greatly magnified in cases of emergencies as well as power outages.
Mariner Tower II is in compliance with all of the requirements as stated in the Town of Becket Zoning By-laws, section 6.4.
I, therefore vote to approve the application of Mariner Tower II, LLC to construct a new wireless communication facility off of Cross Road in Becket.
Gale LaBelle- I vote to approve this application because the qualifications of the Special Permit are in order with the Wireless Communication Bylaw of Becket, and comply with the FCC regulations imposed by cell towers regulations, and approved by a registered consultant.
The height of the cell tower of 150 feet , is well within the wireless communication bylaw guidelines.
There are no other cell towers to collocate on existing structures , and poor service by AT&T in most of the proposed area, as proven by 2 members of the Planning Board.
The land had been cleared by the Massachusetts Endangered Species, it is on a 39 acre site, and assessors have given the Planning Board cost analysis of other homes in the community near cell towers, and property values have not decreased.
There will be a space for emergency services, and any change in the tower or transmitters will require a special permit.
Section 704 of the telecommunications Act no state or government or instrumentality thereof, may regulate the placement construction or modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of RF emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commissions regulations concerning such emissions.
Robert Podolski- I vote to approve this application because it meets all current town by-laws to the placement and use of wireless communication facility.
Barbara Stuhlman- I vote to approve this application because it has met the by-laws , the requirements, the FCC requirements. Route 8 is a major thoroughfare, with gaps in coverage, not only for all phones but emergency communications . Fire chief says the tower will be a benefit for the town for this reason, plus others. The tower will not be intrusive or visible except intermittently.
Ann Krawet- I vote to approve this application because(1) the applicant has demonstrated a significant gap in coverage in area to be served by the proposed cell tower. (2) Applicant has met its burden to find alternative feasible sites but has met with no success. (3) Applicant has vowed to provide space for Becket Emergency services in perpetuity. (4) applicant meets Becket By-law 6.4 as to general guidelines / setbacks /citing and height requirements, design requirements, and conditions of use. (5) applicant has conformed to guidelines of Telecommunication Act of 1996, MA laws. (6) Local zoning authorities may not “prohibit” or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services (47 USC subsection 332 ©(7) (B) (i) (II)
Stanley Oransky- Absent
Public Hearing- Peter Wallach, individually and as manager of Becket Highlands LLC- 263 Tyringham Road, Map 404 lots 49.0-49.4.
7:24 Hearing opens
Ms. LaBelle opens hearing and asks secretary if all fees and reimbursements have been paid to the town. Secretary advises that no payments have yet been made. Mr. Charles Ferris, attorney representing Mr. Wallach assured board members that when Mr. Wallach arrives he will pay his fees, otherwise, Mr. Ferris advised that he would write a check on Mr. Wallach’s behalf.
Mr. Ferris approaches the board members and presents them with his plan. Mr. Ferris explains that his client previously came before the board with a Form A. He goes on to explain that the Town officials were made aware of Mr. Wallach’s plan for a 5 lot project. Mr. Ferris goes on to explain that everything was very clear at the time and that nothing was hidden from the town. Mr. Ferris explains that this was only brought to light recently when applying for a bank loan, his client was advised to go before the planning board to obtain a special permit and the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Variance. Mr. Wallach confirms that this project had been brought before the Conservation Commission as well. Mr. Wallach explains that there is plenty of frontage for 5 separate driveways, however they thought they would just cut in
for one driveway, thus preserving the woodlands as much as possible, and this way would be better for the environment. Mr. Ferris adds that a large amount in tax revenue will come to the Town from the 5 proposed houses.
Mr. Ferris advises that his client did go before Zoning Board of Appeals and was advised that they would first need to obtain a special permit from the planning board. Mr. Ferris states that they are in compliance to get their variance, and they do have reasonable opportunity to receive it.Mr. Ferris sites section 9.3.2 , meeting criteria of drainage, surface, width, culverts, swales, etc. Mr. Ferris also notes that a single driveway would be an improvement to traffic flow and would help preserve the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Ferris displays photos of the property and asks the board members if they have any questions or concerns. Ms. LaBelle states that the board has received a letter from the Conservation Commission as well as the building department. Ms. LaBelle goes on to read the letters (on file in the planning board office) aloud. After hearing the letters , Mr. Wallach states that they were always talking about 18 ft. however when the Conservation Commission cam in, they asked that the first 75 ft. of the driveway only be 14 ft. Mr. Schlanger informs the applicant that when he came before the board last time, he was told he needed to apply for a subdivision Road.
Mr. George Fuller, as member of the public asks Mr. Wallach if he is planning on putting in a subdivision. Mr. Ferris explains that they have applied for a special permit as well as a variance. Mr. Robert Ronzio stands up and states his name. Mr. Ronzio explains that he was a planning board member, when Mr. Wallach previously came before the board. Mr. Ronzio clearly states that at that time, Mr. Wallach was told that he would have to put in a Subdivision Road. Mr. Ronzio suggests to pull the meeting minutes from 2006-2007 so that they may be researched.Mr. Robert Gorden states that he was not on the board 3 years ago, however, the land that they are speaking of is extremely steep and has a lot of ledge. Mr. Donald Munger agrees with Mr. Gorden , adding that maybe if the topography is so bad, there shouldn’t
be 5 lots to begin with. Mr. Ronzio advises that the topography may not allow for 5 lots and that a subdivision needs to be created. Mr. Fuller adds that if two emergency vehicles need to pass, it would not even be a possibility. Mr. Ferris replies that Mr. John Hall, Fire Chief, is aware of the driveway and said it is OK. Mr. Podolski states that we are comparing two different things, a driveway vs. a road. Mr. Podolski confirms that a subdivision would have to be created and that they would have to comply with state subdivision bylaws. Mr. Podolski also confirms that back in 2007 the permits for the road had been denied.
At this time, Mr. Ferris asks if they can adjourn the meeting and possibly amend their application to possibly include 2,3,or 4 house instead. Mr. Schlanger states that this information had already been given to Mr. Wallach.
Mr. Ferris states that they will need to discuss this amongst themselves and see what they can come up with.
Mr. Stanley Oransky makes a motion to continue the public hearing. Mr. Schlanger amends motion, adding that there will only be one continuance allowed and that will take place on June 9th. Ms. Krawet seconds the new motion; Unanimous Approval.
Public Hearing continued until Wednesday, June 9th, 2010.
New Business- Board members are given Informational packets, along with new application for 71 Chester Road, Uncle Larry’ s Tavern, applicant requesting a special permit.
Budget- Read and Reviewed
Correspondence- Read and Reviewed
Schedule next meeting for Wednesday, June 9th, 2010.
Mr. Schlanger makes a motion to adjourn meeting, Mr. Oransky seconds motion; unanimous approval.
Respectfully submitted,
Heather Hunt
Administrative Assistant
Signed_____________________________ Date________________
Gale LaBelle
Signed______________________________ Date________________
Martin Schlanger
Signed______________________________ Date________________
Robert Podolski
Signed______________________________ Date_______________
Ann Krawet
Signed______________________________ Date________________
Barbara Stuhlman
Signed ______________________________ Date________________
Stanley Oransky
| 