Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
Planning Board Minutes 07/13/2009
Greenfield Planning Board
Minutes for July 13, 2009
Minutes recorded by
Kathy Carpenter

Members present:  GMorris, MSteere, JFletcher, MBorden,  BMarshall(alt).

7:01pm

The meeting is called to order.  MSteere reads minutes from June 22, 2009 meeting.  MSteere moves that minutes be accepted as read, JFletcher seconds, no discussion, all in favor, the motion passes.

7:08pm

GMorris reads the agenda for tonight’s meeting.  BMarshall is sitting in for KO’Connell.

7:10pm Mail

  • SWRPC Commission Highlights for June, 2009
  • Report from Consultant Mark Hutchins re: AT&T/New Cingular Wireless Facility
  • YTD List of Building Permits from CEO as of June 24, 2009
  • Selectmen’s Meeting Minutes for June 11, 2009, June 18, 2009 and June 25, 2009
  • Memo from BOS announcing a 5% Budget Cut
  • Current YTD Budget as of July 2, 2009
  • LGC announcement for nominations for Municipal Volunteer Awards
  • Notice from C. Shaw re: fees for Returned Checks, Certified Mail Costs, Bank Fees and Town Handling Costs
  • Notice from BOS re: County Rep C. Beck meeting on July 9, 2009
7:15pm

Continuation of Site Plan Review for New Cingular Wireless PC Services (“AT&T) at Map R1, Lot R009, 515 Sawmill Rd

Present are:  Peter Marchant, Steve Anderson, Dan Goulet (AT&T RF Engineer), Mr. & Mrs. Gene Mitchell (resident).  

The PB is in a deliberative session.  GMorris thanks the parties for getting the crane for the site test.  MSteere states that he went to Muzzy Hill to the highest lots on the top during the tower test.  The crane was visible however he had to look for it, not much of the crane was visible and blended with foliage.  BMarshall asks what the color of the tower would be, the applicant state that the color would be brown.  BMarshall stated that a brown tower would stand out against green foliage.  BMarshall and MBorden reported they traveled to Antrim Center during the tower test and the tower wasn’t visible until coming down 202 from town.  The tower was visible at Powdermill Pond, compared to the tower at Crotched; its impact would be similar.  From the top of Norway Hill it could be seen however at the bottom of the hill there is a residence.  The residents were home and allowed the PB members to view from their house.  While the tower was visible, it was difficult to locate.  A camouflage antenna/tree would be really beneficial from that vantage point.   BMarshall hands out pictures for the PB to view.  Gmorris states the locations he covered were the State Park Beach, ConVal High School, Norway Hill in Hancock, along RT. 202 to Antrim, Powdermill Pond and Whittemore Lake in Bennington.  It was only seen at Powdermill Pond along Rt. 202 and he stated there may be some residences at the lake that may be able to see the tower.  The tower was not visible at Gould Hill.  JFletcher states that at the State Park Boat Launch the tower could be seen but not a huge impact.  The tower could not be seen from Barbara C. Harris Center.  GMorris feels that this was a good representation of what the impacts of the tower would be.  GMorris asks if there will be a light on the tower. PMarchant states no, there will not be a light on the tower.  GMorris reviews the letter from Mark Hutchins.  Gmorris notes that the height needs to be 15’ above ‘clutter’.  Dan Goulet addresses the PB to discuss Hutchins’ findings.  He presents the PB with a color coded RF map of the existing PCS Coverage.  DGoulet states that the original proposal was 150’, to cover all of the gaps for in-building and in-vehicle coverage.  DGoulet states that the pine needles and oak leaves attenuate (absorb) the signal.  New Cingular is trying to cover Rt. 31 and pick up as many of the residential areas as well.  DGoulet states that MHutchins spoke a lot about Crotchet, and that AT&T is putting a tower up at Crotchet.  Even at 150’ there are still gaps along Rt. 202, and on Rt. 31 going North.  A drive test has not been completed for this site.  One was completed for Francestown.  The average tree height is 75’.  He then shows the PB a map of the location at a tower height of 97’.  There are still gaps.  MSteere asks about co-locations of other equipment and asks about the height of 97’, will the tower be able to support co-located equipment?  DGoulet states that it depends upon the vendor and the RF band they are using, thus it is frequency dependent.  JFletcher asks about the East side of Greenfield and Francistown areas that would not have coverage.  DGoulet states that the overall plan is 3 sites in Francestown and they are not there yet.  He also mentions that Crotched is still in the works (a replacement of an existing tower). GMorris states that these are all estimates, and not based on a drive test.  DGoulet states that it is in fact an estimate but very accurate.  He discusses why a drive test was completed in Francestown and it was because the town was asking why an older existing tower couldn’t be used.   MSteere asks if the model was proprietary, DGoulet states that the software is not but the data and assumptions fed into it are.  JFletcher asks again about the East side of Greenfield.  DGoulet states that there is a second site in the plan for Greenfield, however if they cannot find a suitable site it may not happen.  GMorris asks if the maps are strictly AT&T coverage.  DGoulet states that yes, this is only for AT&T coverage.  GMitchell asks if the applicants would have to go before the ZBA for a variance.  GMorris states that yes, they do need to obtain a variance for the height of the tower.  GMitchell asks why not choose Crotched Mt in Greenfield.  He believes it would have better line-of-site.  GMitchell states that to receive a variance, it cannot be strictly for financial reasons, there has to be no other alternative.  Sanderson states that he believes that a tower is prohibited at Crotchet Mt.  He states that a State Supreme Court ruling stated that coverage gaps are considered to fulfilling the hardship requirement.  GMitchell asks if the hardship includes coverage by all carrier’s or just one carrier is good enough.  GMorris asks why not co-locate with Verizon since we get full Verizon coverage.  SAnderson states that they do not want to duplicate the Verizon network.  DGoulet states that they did consider all possible co-locations.  JFletcher asks if there would be a site to cover the rest of Greenfield including the town center and the east side of the town.

MSteere moves that the site plan review is approved subject to the ZBA ruling at the proposed height, JFletcher seconds.  JFletcher discusses the potential of reducing the tower height, however that would impact coverage.  He states that the PB can’t make the assumption that potential owners of the subdivision property may want the coverage.  MBorden asks the Mitchells if the tower was only 20’ above the tree line would that have less impact.  GMitchell states that it would be more easily camoflaged.  BMarshall summarizes the MHutchins review which states that this location does make sense to provide coverage for the town.  He does feel that the PB needs to discuss camouflaging the tower.  MBorden states that he had some thought that camouflaging would be appropriate.  He feels that Greenfield has a lot of ‘look-out’ locations, and not all of them could be evaluated.  He feels that camouflaging would certainly help in a lot of locations; therefore painting it a dark green would be beneficial to the town.  It does need to be done to provide coverage to the town.  Gmorris asks the applicant what techniques can be used to camouflage the tower.  PMarchant states that the tower will end up looking like a 40’ tree out in the middle of no where.  DGoulet states that a lattice tower can been seen through, versus a mono-pole tower which is a solid structure.  GMitchell asks about the size of the antennas.  DGoulet states they are about 6 ½” wide by 4’ high.  The tower would be 14’ wide at the top.  It is fiberglass with a rounded front for wind loading; they stick out about 8”.  MSteere asks about camouflage colors.  SAnderson states that in his experience the tower is typically a galvanized steel mono-pole and the antenna’s are white, blue or a light color so it will blend into the landscape.  If you use multiple colors it will stand out like a sore thumb.  Gmorris would like to suggest that a bond amount for tower removal be considered.  The applicant has an estimate for a bond amount.

MSteere withdraws his initial motion.  

MSteere moves that the site plan review for the proposed tower for New Cingular Wireless PC Services (AT&T) at 515 Sawmill Rd Map R1, Lot R009 be approved subject to the following:
  • The applicant receives a variance(s) from the ZBA for the height above the tree canopy.
  • The tower is camouflaged as a galvanized mono-pole tower (as proposed) with muted colors for the antenna arrays.
  • That a bonded amount for tower removal of $36, 468.18 be provided to the town of Greenfield.
JFletcher seconds the motion.  The PB discusses the motion on the floor, specifically regarding item 2 for camouflaging.  There is no further discussion.  All in favor, the motion passes.  The applicant points out that the Zoning Ordinance at 2.F.8.

JFletcher moves that the PB finds that the visual impact of an antenna array diameter larger than 4 feet would be negligible and the PB approves that the antenna array platform be up to 14 feet wide.  MSteere seconds.    No discussion, all in favor, the motion passes.  

8:40pm

The site plan review is complete.

8:45pm  

The PB discusses a possible discrepancy in the Zoning Ordinance regarding antenna tower height restrictions.  One part of the regulation states 100 foot and another states 140 foot maximum height.  This will need to be amended through town vote.  The PB leans towards capping the height at 100 feet.  MSteere moves that on all tower structures that the PB uses the more restrictive requirement, which is 100 feet, in the interim until the discrepancy is rectified via town vote on a zoning ordinance change IAW RSA 676;14.  The discrepant sections are Section 5, 1, E (100 feet) and Section 2, E, 1 (140 feet).  BMarshall seconds.  No discussion.  All in favor, the motion passes.

8:50pm The PB enters into a general discussion.

9:00pm  GMorris discusses the agenda for the July 27, 2009 meeting.

9:15pm The PB continues its discussion re: Future Land Use Section from the
 Greenfield Master Plan.

10:00pm MSteere moves the meeting be adjourned,   MBorden seconds, no
   discussion, all in favor, the meeting is adjourned.