 |
Greenfield Planning Board
Minutes for June 8, 2009
Minutes recorded by
Kathy Carpenter
Members present: GMorris, MSteere, JFletcher, JAdams, MBorden, KO’Connell, BMarshall(alt). Peter Hopkins, Greenfield CEO is present.
7:05pm Start of Meeting
MSteere read the minutes for the Delay’s Harvester Market site walk held on May 22 2009. JFletcher motions to accept minutes as presented. MSteere seconds. All in favor, motion passes.
JFletcher reads minutes from the May 18 2009 meeting.
Changes: Line 86 remove 4.
Line 43, Change Francistown to Francestown
MSteere move to accept minutes as amended, MBorden Seconds, All in Favor, motion passes.
7:15pm Site Plan Review for Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (“AT&T”) cell phone tower located at 515 Sawmill Road, Map R1, Lot 009.
JAdams recused himself since he is an abutter.
Present are Peter Marchant and Steve Anderson representing the applicant. Proposed is a 100 foot monopole cellular tower on 257 acre lot. It will use existing utility poles and then underground cabling to the tower. There will be a 50’ x 50’ compound with shelter for the equipment and diesel generator. Tests were done last fall and there are photos available. An appraisal report has been completed and provided to the PB. GMorris asks the PB if they need any other information. MSteere asks if the land is in current use, the applicant states yes. MSteere states that there will be 6 antennas and asks if the applicant would come back before the Planning Board if there would be any additional antennas. The applicant affirms. GMorris asks KO’Connell about the abutter
list and associated notification fees. There are 48 abutters. There is one advertising fee. GMorris calculates the fees associated with the application. GMorris collects fees of $690.00 from the applicant. The PB reviews the application. The evaluation from Carol Ogilvie is read. Carol notes that the application overall is quite complete. Most of the checklist items would not apply. There have been a number of waiver requests which appear reasonable. Carol also notes specifically that the applicant is requesting a larger than 4 ft diameter antenna and that the applicant reserves the right to change the make, manufacturer, etc of the antenna. She suggests the PB takes this into consideration. The PB reviews the non-residential site plan review checklist. Several waivers are requested on pages 32 -34 in the application. MBorden asks about the landscape plan requirement and waiver request
and asks if the requirement wouldn’t be landscaping in the immediate vicinity of the building/compound. The PB asks about snow removal plans. MBorden states that if there was an emergency at the location, the emergency responders would need access. The PB will review fire safety requirements later. MSteere would like to ask how much additional cable will be run on the existing utility poles. The lease is 100’ x 100’ however the compound footprint is 50’ x 50’. Item III (10) requires a turn around at the facility for emergency vehicles. This will be considered with the fire safety discussion. MSteere moves that there is enough information in the package to invoke jurisdiction. JFletcher seconds. There is no discussion, all in favor. GMorris asks the applicant if there are any additional comments that the applicant would like to make. The applicant provides the PB with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Screening Report completed for this site plan. There are some differences, the report was done for 140’ tower and the applicant is requesting a 100’ tower. It also considered above ground utilities where the applicant is now looking at underground utilities. This report was submitted to the NH State Historic Preservation Officer (noted on tab 11 of the application).
8:17pm the public hearing is opened.
GMitchell asks about equipment going up the driveway and what size equipment will be required. The applicant responds that there will be a crane for construction which may result in some clearing about the driveway. GMitchell also expresses concerns over the 12ft. gravel driveway and the width for emergency vehicle passage. GMitchell also talks about the proposed height of the tower and the height of the surrounding tree line. The applicant states that the tower is not surrounded by trees but is in a field edged by trees. The location was selected because of the open space so that trees would not have to be cut. The applicant is going before the zoning board to request a variance from the tree canopy height. GMitchell suggests another location for the tower that may require an even shorter tower,
but would require some cutting of trees. The applicants show pictures of the proposed tower location and discussed why this location was selected. KO’Connell asks about the height of the trees at the edge of the field. The applicant states that a tree canopy survey has not been completed. GMorris asks about the balloon test and the applicant states that they would complete another balloon test as required by the ordinances. BMarshall asks about exhibit 4, according to this map site, there is a site on the edge of Crotchet Mountain, and why this tower is required when there is the site located at Crotchet Mountain. The applicant states that they could get an engineer to answer technical coverage questions if the PB would like however there are limitations of the frequency and the site is too high for coverage. GMorris asks about camouflaging of the antenna tower. The applicant will entertain suggestions, however for this location
it is not recommended because it is in the middle of a field. GMitchell is not concerned about the coverage; he is concerned about the visibility of the tower. The applicant can do analysis with the RF engineer regarding coverage and present it to the PB. GMitchell talks about the ‘view tax’ he must pay to have the view that he has, and the location of this tower would be within this view. The applicant states that a study has been done regarding impacts to the property values and there is very little change. GMitchell states that while the property value may not change, his view most likely will. KCarpenter asked about how many technicians work on the tower. Response is usually one on average. She also questioned if GFD is capable of performing a tower rescue or electrical rescue. GMitchell asks about the fuel and snow removal for the fuel truck. Mrs. Mitchell asks about the view at the Cernota property.
She asks about what the lease is on the property. The applicant states that it is proprietary information. She also asks if the town gets extra tax money from this. GMorris states that it would be an assessor question. JAdams, as a select board member, speaks about the need for DSL in the town and states that it could be an added benefit. JAdams speaks concerning the potential tax income, the property would have to be taken out of current use and reassessed. GMorris asks if the public has any other questions or comments. KO’Connell asks if this would increase any internet connectivity for the town. The applicant states that if someone had a device that is internet capable then yes, this would increase that service. The applicant suggests contacting the AT&T sales folks for cost information. GMorris asks if there are any further comments from the public, hearing none, at 8:58pm the public hearing is
closed. GMorris would like to ask that the applicant do a balloon test with enough time to notify the area. He also suggests that two balloons be used; one at the proposed location and one at the location suggested by GMitchell or an alternate site with equivalent coverage but won’t hamper a resident’s view. KO’Connell states that he would prefer a crane test, which would provide a more accurate visual. GMorris would also like to schedule a site walk. The applicant will attempt to get a crane at the location as close to the proposed location as possible, and/or put a balloon at the location as well. The applicant suggests the site walk takes place at the same time. MBorden would be satisfied with a balloon test and looking at the balloon from the Mitchell home. GMorris would like to invite the ZBA as well. JFletcher would like to see a crane. BMarshall also likes the idea of a crane. MSteere would
like to see both a balloon and crane, and a balloon at the second location. The applicant is concerned about the monetary cost of doing both. The applicant will do both if necessary. The PB is discussing a crane at the main site and a balloon at the alternate site. JAdams states that it is ridiculous to require a crane when a balloon test is sufficient and is usually what is done. Getting a crane up there would be costly. JFletcher does not want the applicant to cut trees in order to get a crane at the location. BMarshall still would prefer a crane because the overall impact would not be appreciated, however he does not want trees cut to get a crane up there. KO’Connell suggests the PB asks a crane operator if a crane can get up the existing driveway. GMorris would like to set a date to complete the test. Saturday July 11, 2009 is scheduled for the test, Sunday July 12, 2009 as a rain date. The applicant will
look into the ability of getting a crane or balloon(s) and the secondary location and report via letter to the PB before its next meeting on June 22, 2009. The balloon would have to be put up around 6am; the PB scheduled the site walk for 8:30am. The applicant asks if any notice should go out, KO’Connell will notice in the local paper. KO’Connell will coordinate with the ZBA as well and discuss a public hearing date before the ZBA. The ZBA needs to have PB input to the application. JFletcher moves to continuing the hearing until the site walk and the July 13, 2009 PB meeting. MSteere seconds, no discussion, all in favor, the motion passes.
9:18pm 718 Forest Road Properties, LLC (Delay’s Harvester Market)
JMcCourt presents changes made to the plans since the last meeting and the site walk. The applicant called the GFD three times and has not received a return call. The PB provides the applicant with the number for PHopkins. JFletcher would like to recuse himself and GMorris appoints alternate BMarshall sit in for JFletcher. JMcCourt continues to present the changes. A storm water management report is provided to the PB, JMcCourt spoke with the DOT regarding the access easement to the west of the property. The DOT only looks as far back as 1970, JMcCourt went back to 1930. There is a roadway at the east end of the property, but there is no indication of the exact location. There is a 15’ easement on the property provided to the public, there is also talk about a roadway on the east end of ‘the property’. It is not clear which property it is located upon. The DOT didn’t see any reason why they wouldn’t re-grant the easement. The Davenport’s did speak with the Griffing’s and
asked about a fence and/or bushes being installed on their property. The discussions were positive and constructive. The Davenport’s didn’t see any problem with addressing the Griffing’s concerns. The lighting plan is discussed. Lighting was very selectively chosen to limit the amount of light pollution. BMarshall asks about the landscape plan and if the vegetation is salt resistant. GMorris asks if they are in the ground, the applicant says yes. MSteere asks if Davenport would consider installing the pipe (as discussed in the site walk) if the town provided the pipe. The applicant agrees. JFletcher asks about curbing around the landscape area, JMcCourt states there will be no additional curbing to be installed however the landscaped area will be mounded up. BMarshall believes that the question about fencing is important which would help to stop any children from running into the street. He suggests
that a split rail fence perhaps goes between the landscape area and the street for a visual barrier. Davenport states that the fence should be on the store side, the PB agrees. It would have to be at edge of pavement. JFletcher asks about the lighting and the use of old looking type lights much like the ones that the town has been using but those that would meet the ‘dark sky’ requirements. Davenport will provide the information to his electrician and try and find suitable lighting fixtures. GMorris would like to see an agreement in writing between the Davenports and the Griffings, and this would be the only show stopper in his opinion. Aside from that, GMorris feels this will really improve on the appearance of the town. MSteere moves that the site plan is accepted and approved with the contingency that a written agreement with the Griffings is provided. BMarshall seconds, there is no discussion, all in favor, the motion
passes. BMarshall wishes to commend the Davenport’s on their spirit given the nature of the comments at the initial public hearing and by the changes they have made to the plans, which addresses the concerns. JFletcher asks if the ‘agreement’ should be noted on the plat. The PB is in agreement, there should be a note on the plat. JMcCourt asks if the agreement could be just stapled to the plat to save the applicant money, the PB is in agreement. JMcCourt provides the notice of merger of the two lots for PB signature. MSteere moves that the PB approves the merger of lots, BMarshall seconds, no discussion, all in favor, the motion passes.
9:50pm The PB discusses some other business. GMorris reviews the agenda for the next meeting.
10:09pm MSteere moves the meeting be adjourned, JFletcher seconds, no discussion, all in favor, the meeting is adjourned.
| |
