Preliminary Planning Board
Meeting Minutes – June 14, 2010
Minutes recorded by Sharon Rossi
Members present: GMorris, MSteere, MBorden, BMarshall (alt), KO’Connell, JAdams with
JFletcher arriving at 7:20 pm.
7:00 pm GMorris noted that BMarshall would be sitting in for JFletcher. MSteere began reading the meeting minutes for May 24, 2010 with JAdams and MBorden taking turns to complete the reading.
Amendments made to May 24, 2010 meeting minutes:
· Line 6 added (alt) after BMarshall
· Line 67 remove “to” - sentence to read as: definition of abandoned well be inserted at the end of the sentence.”
· Line 78 remove “which are” – sentence to read as: a map that shows all the stratified areas located in the Master Plan.
· Line 111 remove “also” – sentence to read as: approximately 80’ from any boundary and there would be no wetlands encroachment.
· Line 187 remove “talking” – sentence to read as: “How much of a risk are we risking if a resident lands a helicopter within the next 2 weeks?”
· Line 191 remove “motioned” – sentence to read as: “MSteere modified his motion to hold a public hearing….”
Line 206 remove "a.m.” ---– sentence to read as: JFletcher motioned the meeting adjourn at 10:59 p.m.”
MSteere motioned that meeting minutes of May 24, 2010 be accepted as amended. MBorden seconded the motion. GMorris called for a vote which was unanimous.
7:15 pm Hearing for Proposed Vertical Take-Off and Landing Aircraft Ordinance
GMorris read the proposed amendment for the attendees. He then explained that the purpose of the amendment is to restrict the use of take-off and landing aircraft within the Town of Greenfield. He commented that upon research, it was noted that the State of NH has no regulations regarding take-off and landing of vertical aircraft and relies on what the FAA has in place for regulations. The Planning Board is trying to take a pro-active stance in regards to this means of transportation. The Planning Board hopes to be able to present this amendment to the town at a special town meeting in September, 2010 if it is legally possible. If the meeting can be held in September then this proposal will be in effect until the residents vote.
GMorris asked the Planning Board, “Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment #1 as read? BMarshall asked that an “s” be added to the word method, to change the word is to “are”, and to insert the word “not” after the word are; so that the sentence would read as –“…where other practical methods are not available to do the work….”
GMorris opened the public portion for discussion at 7:21 p.m. He explained the Rules of Conduct to the audience as well as noting the emergency exits.
KAsbury, Lower Zephyr Lake Road, commented that the less populated area of Town would be the least dangerous for vertical take-off and landing aircraft. “In a residential area, what would be a safe distance for such aircraft?”
AWood, Gould Hill Road, commented that a resident in the Rural/Agricultural District wouldn’t have to get a Special Exception from Board of Adjustment as take-off and landing in the Rural/Agricultural District is the only district that allows vertical take-off and landing aircraft.
KVincent, Zephyr Lake Road asked, ”Wouldn’t the Town’s sound ordinance already apply to this and why are you wording the ordinance as vertical take-off and landing aircraft instead of helicopters?
MBorden responded, “Our sound ordinance is directly related to time of day, and between the hours of 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. noise levels are restricted.”
DDaume asked, “Is this a zero tolerance town for noise?” Also, will pilot insurance cover expenses if a crash occurs and fire results?”
SKnight, 325 Zephyr Lake Road stated she strongly supports this ordinance. It seems farsighted, and proactive of the Board to maintain a rural atmosphere for the town.
JRenaud questioned if there will be a September Town meeting with this amendment on the ballot or will this hearing’s vote accept or reject this ordinance? Also when will it be in effect? GMorris stated it has to be within 120 days of town vote. If we vote to accept this ordinance, it is in effect if we can schedule a special town meeting within the 120 day time limit.
JAdams responded, “We have to make sure that the Special Town Meeting can be held during or in conjunction with the primary voting day so that the ballot with the Amendment can be handed to voters at the voting booth.
KVincent suggested that further restrictions on size of acreage and landing pad with proper clearance be incorporated in the Amendment.
JAdams replied, “This amendment already restricts the acreage.”
PRenaud, 89 Gould Hill asked, “How we voters, residents of the Town find out about the Special Town meeting if one is needs to be held?”
MSteere explained a notice would be published on the Town’s website and advertised in the local newspaper.
JMoran commented, “What is vertical?” If I owned an Ultralight which can fly straight up, would that be prohibited?
EAnderson asked, “What if we find out we cannot bring this to a vote in September?”
GMorris responded, “Then it will go onto the March town meeting and will not yet be in effect until then. The Planning Board feels it is important that we try to pass it in September.
EAnderson asked, “Can a petition by Gould Hill residents be presented at the September primary?” GMorris replied, “That we will have to check with the Town Attorney.”
THunt, 60 Gould Hill asked, “What would be the method of enforcement?”
JAdams replied, “The Select Board, after the ordinance is in place will be the enforcing body.”
JBond from the Peterborough Ledger-Transcript asked, “What inspired this amendment?” GMorris replied, “A group of citizens came in and asked town’s position on helicopters.” JAdams commented, “The State of NH considers helicopters accessory use of a home. He also stated that the Amendment is modeled after an ordinance Conway, NH wrote.
7:39 pm GMorris closed public portion. BMarshall asked, “Are we aware of any helicopters taking off prior this meeting in this town, recently. General consensus was that no one was is aware of any helicopter taking off recently.
Sheldon Pennoyer commented, “The Planning Board should stick to what we have written for this ordinance.”
7:43 pm The Board will deliberate their decision later in the evening.
7:51pm Site Plan Review Application for 46 Zephyr Lake Road, for a personal wireless service
facility, including a 90’ foot cell tower.
GMorris explained that another-up sheet was going around the room. He also asked if any member of the Planning Board needed to recuse themselves. He explained to the audience that the representatives will present the application to Board which will then review the application to see if the application is complete enough to invoke jurisdiction. If the Board votes that it is, the applicant will present additional information which will then be followed by public comment. He also asked the secretary if the hearing was properly advertised and were all abutters notified via certified mail. SRossi responded, “38 certified notices and 1 international certified notice, plus the newspaper notification were all sent or published as required.”
JSpringer, attorney from Bosen & Springer, Kevin Breuer, radio frequency engineer, Don Haskel, rep for Florida Partners Towers rep, and Peter Marchand, AT&T rep will present.
JSpringer: narrative:
The host property is located at 46 Zephyr Lake Road, Greenfield, NH. Tax Map R6, Lot 20 and is owned by Kevin Brown and Tracy Waddle. The applicant is Florida Tower Partners, 1001 3rd Ave W, Ste 420, Bradenton, FL. The applicant will be utilizing the existing driveway to access the proposed cell tower. The location of the cell tower area is 464 ft from the rear property line, east 222’; and west 199’ with the access drive being 12’ wide graveled. The compound is gravel as well and is located to gain advantage of property line locations and is central in this stand of trees. This is a permitted use in this zone. We first applied for a 90’ tower which is 3’ over the permitted use, but have now lowered the height to 87’. We first applied to
Board of Adjustment for the 3’ overage, but were informed that we had to apply to the Planning Board prior to the Board of Adjustment reviewing the application. It was dropped because of the good tree coverage. The average tree height is 67’ but tree canopy is much higher. If approved here, we will not need variance.
The pole itself is a freestanding monopole, with no guide wires, and no lights. The diameter at the bottom is 5-6’. The top of the pole will have AT&T antennas which will accommodate two additional antennas for co-location. The only utilities are phone and electric which can be run from Zephyr Lake Road underground following the driveway into the location. The equipment will be in small equipment cabinets, the size and shape of refrigerators. A concrete pad will be inside the compound which will be enclosed by a fence. Base equipment will be nearly invisible on the property. A HVAC unit will be in the compound. A small 60 watt bulb will be over the door. Traffic will be approximately one or two trips per month by AT&T with up to 3 carriers which may mean 3 - 6 trips per month. The access drive will handle this traffic. This will be an unmanned site. No water or sewer will be needed at the site. A little grading will be needed due to the topography of the site. Roughly 40’
out, still 200’ away from property line, drainage swales on either side of access along with existing swales. Erosion control plans have been submitted with Planning Board’s application.
A tree survey of the property was done. The reason for the survey is Greenfield’s Ordinance Section V (2) (E) (10 (d) which limits the height to 20’ above the “average tree canopy height.”
JSpringer stated that federal law says towers must be allowed but they have not removed all discretion from town planning process, Supreme Court said yes, you still have to go through zoning planning process, but federal process is over town ordinance.
The Town of Greenfield places a 140’ limit, which is 20’ above average tree height. Radio frequency waves are blocked if below tree line by ridges, mountains etc. The average tree canopy is 67’. There are 40 trees between 70 - 80’; 10 trees at 100’ used for the “average tree height calculation.” Fighting average tree height, rather than real tree height, we dropped the height of the pole to 87’. The co-location at this site is not going be great as each antenna needs 10’ of separation. Antennas speak to handsets which speak
to cables which run down the pole to base equipment and then is connected to a landline and routed to wherever you are calling in the world which is handed off from cell site to cell site as a relay. The area AT&T is trying to cover is Route 136 & 31.
Kevin Breuer, radio frequency engineer, offered:
Exhibit 1 shows the current AT&T coverage in Greenfield which is very poor. The majority of Greenfield has little to no coverage. GMorris asked, “What is NH115?” KBreuer, responded, “It is an existing tower off of Route 31 by North Pack.”
Exhibit 2 gives all the site numbers and locations. The site we are discussing is on the edge of red/yellow area at edge of town, and will cover the center of town, Route 136, and Route 31, partially, as some of the frequency will be blocked by a hill.
Exhibit 3 shows what we are trying to cover in Greenfield.
Exhibit 4A shows a prime spot, but covenants prevented our getting this location.
Exhibit 4B shows alternative spots which, in the future, we hope to cover. If we were to get a higher height on the tower, we would have connectivity to our other site, and almost connect to Antrim.
MBorden asked on Exhibit 6B, you are showing SD2472, a proposed site, and yet in 6A, you are not showing the site. KBreuer responded, “Exhibit 6A is just showing coverage.”
GMorris asked the Board if they would like to go through the site plan application checklist. Yes, was the response from the Board.
ü 3 copies of the site plan attached - yes
ü All necessary legal paperwork attached - yes
ü Waiver from: septic design/ waste disposal system, & soil survey data 10,000 on 18 acre parcel
ü Submission requirements: location of site, abutters list, landowners name and address, copy of power of attorney, applicant name and address, preparers name and address, scale & north arrow, copies of plat; 2 large & 5 small - yes
ü Date - yes
ü Location of property and street - - yes
ü Zoning district with boundaries within 1000’ ft of site (General Residence) - yes
ü Flood elevation – not applicable
ü Wetlands - no
ü Boundary lines, frontage lot, and easements – yes, plat page Z1 has info.
ü Abutting properties – no
ü Topography contours, existing structures are shown on plat Z5 and drainage is noted on plats Z4 and plat Z5 shows the proposed a culvert
ü Watercourses - yes
ü Location of bldg, drainage system utilities structures - yes but for this property only
ü Drainage yes, loading docks – not applicable
ü Engineering calculations - yes
ü Design location of water supply, waste disposal, expansion waiver- not applicable
ü Fences, pedestrian walkways, trails, public common ownership - yes
ü Snow storage, removal , will enter by foot or snowmobile - no
ü Exterior lighting plan - yes
ü Small sign on fence - yes
ü Erosion sediments provision -, yes
ü Fire safety, control - yes
ü Location of easement underground electric - yes
ü Phasing of construction - yes
ü Preliminary bldg plans - yes
ü Building height - no, fencing elevation - yes
ü Proposed employees - yes
ü Construction - yes
ü General standards - yes
ü Use proposed - yes
ü Vehicle access turnout area - yes
ü Adequate all season safe, yes
ü All access locations - yes
ü State applications - yes
ü All road frontage - yes
ü Emergency access - no
ü Arrangement parking safety and convenience – yes
Items to be discussed:
v 1000’ away from Zephyr Lake, is it? Need to show proximity to the Lake
v There are wetlands on property, but plats are not reflecting any, applicant to check
v Need frontage and setbacks figures
v Need to seeing abutting properties buildings on all sides on plat
v Snow removal and fire safety, needs discussion
v Need building height on plat
v Need emergency access shown on plat
v Need to see where snow piling will go
GMorris queried the Board, “Do you feel you have enough information to vote on jurisdiction or not? JAdams said, “Yes, there is some more information we need but we have sufficient material to invoke jurisdiction. Other members agreed. JAdams motioned that the application be accepted. GMorris called for a vote. Vote was unanimous.
8:57p.m. Planning Board accepted the site plan application as sufficient to invoke jurisdiction.
GMorris asked for a fee of $320.92 to be collected from JSpringer.
A check will be sent by JSpringer in the amount of $320.92 to cover fees.
JSpringer submitted the narrative with all the criteria:
Recap and additional commentary, information as follows:
Section 7 of the General Standards of the Master Plan, our application is in accordance with site plan permitted use and permitted height for this location. We meet the fall zone requirement and fire protection standards. AT&T will use a pre-cast concrete slab and the fire alarm is tied in to a National Operation Center. There will be a fire extinguisher on location. There is no need for water, or sewer. We have done all that is permitted in reference to height and use of the tower. Our preference would be a 150’ tower, but we are not doing that. The site is located in the middle of a parcel of land and will preserve a buffer of vegetation on all sides.
There is parking area with a15’ x 20’ turnout. There are to be drainage swales down either side of the access drive with a culvert and stone check dams which are all noted on the plans. The landscape plan is set out on the plats per se as the location is in the middle of the acreage and retained vegetation is on all sides. No outdoor lightning, other than a small 60 watt bulb over the door of building will be installed. A small identifying sign will be on the fence. As for snow removal and storage, generally we plow it, but at this location, it will not be left open. If snowfall is heavy, access will be by snowmobile, or walk in. The Maintenance/Technician will park their vehicle in the existing driveway. No DOT permit is needed. No wetlands will be impacted. No burden on
municipal services. No on-location employees. Access to location will be during work hours only. A generator will be on site to provide backup power for power outages. The generator is run by diesel with a 189 gallon tank that will be filled at the beginning of the year. Should the tank run out, we won’t refill until the snow melts.
GMorris asked if any Board members have questions. GMorris asked, “When the tree mapping was done, did the surveyors have permission to go onto abutters’ property, to mark the trees on their property, and when were trees were cut and why?” JSpringer responded that he didn’t know the answer.
BMarshall asked about the fall zone letter from Infinigy Engineering & Surveying. JSpringer responded, “We comply with the Fall Zone requirement.”
JFletcher asked, “How do you protect from lightning damage? Is there a lightning rod at top? Is it grounded? Is each antennae, cable, shelter grounded?” KBreuer responded, “Yes, the structure is grounded.”
GMorris said that a site walk needs to be planned and that a height simulation test needs be done. Preferably with a crane. He asked JSpringer what kind of access do you have at the site. JSpringer responded he will investigate to see if a crane can be brought in without the cutting of trees. GMorris said that a scheduled site walk will be 6/23 at 6 pm. Public is invited. GMorris will e-mail The Zoning Board of Adjustment Chair about the site walk. MBorden queried that during the site walk, the Board should note if there are any wetlands that will affect the underground running of power to the compound. GMorris questioned the Board about sending the radio frequency report to the consultant they used previously. BMarshall said, “Yes and a copy to Carol Ogilvie.”
9:20 p.m. GMorris opened discussion to public.
AAndrus has concerns about the discussion on average tree height. He feels that the survey is flawed. He has a degree in forestry and the calculations seem off. His house is for sale and had an executed legal binding offer on it when within 72 hours of prospective buyer finding out about tower, the offer was rescinded. “My property value
was immediately decreased.”
BPope, realtor, asked if other sites have been examined for placement of this tower that do not backup to residential property? DHaskell, Florida Towers Partners responded, “Yes, but the owners either didn’t want the tower located near their home or a financial agreement couldn’t be reached.
CIrwin, Chairwoman ConCom asked that an invitation be extended to her committee for the site walk. GMorris commented, yes, you and any member of the public can go with us on the site walk. She also asked since the property is 18 acres and is in current use, will it be taken out of current use? Can the property owner or future owners cut down all the trees if they want? There is a zoning ordinance that will restrict this. On page 28 of the Zoning Regulations is in place for this. KO’Connell read ordinance to the audience.
SPennoyer said a peer review on the cut and fill of the grading area should be done. He recommended that landscaping be done on the scared area. How many more towers does AT&T see as needed in town? KBreuer stated a proposed site is in the north part of town. Is there another site that will cover this area and another proposed site in town? KBreuer, responded, “No other qualified sites that will meet the coverage that we need. This proposed site will cover 80% of what we really need.”
GMitchell asked, “How was the “average tree height determined?” JSpringer responded that they took the 100’ by 100’ compound site to get the average tree height.
JMoran asked, “Does the Board feel that it is worthwhile to require a bond for decommissioning of the site?” GMorris responded yes, it is required by the ordinance. Also downhill there are wetlands from that site, isn’t an environmental impact study required and doesn’t that report go to the state? A generator that produces 50 kilowatts and runs on diesel is noisy, shouldn’t the Board consider noise impact on the neighbors? A noise impact study should compare noise levels of the generator to what town requires. As for the fall zone, if the pole falls in on itself, good, but does the Board or Town have the right or opportunity for abatement if property damage occurs.
SChicoine, abutter, stated my 545’ property line is shared with 46 Zephyr Lake Road and by my calculations, the southeast corner of the security fence would be 145’ from my property line. A Timber Intent to Cut permit for 46 Zephyr Lake Road was approved by the Board of Selectmen on October 1, 2009. (A copy of the Timber Intent was received by the Board.) The October to December 2009 logging certainly appears directly related to the cell tower. As for the tree survey, I have 28 trees on my property that have been either marked with flagging tape or spray paint for which I never gave permission for anyone to walk onto my property. I would like to know the purpose of marking some trees my property and the 46 Zephyr Lake Road property with white flagging tape and some trees with orange spray paint.
Considering that none of the 142 trees shown in the Tree List section of the site plan document labeled Z7 have a height less than 40 feet, has the average tree canopy height been determine in compliance with the requirements of the Greenfield Zoning Ordinance? Does this mean that all vegetation, including trees, will have to be removed from within the fence compound during construction? Are any of the trees that “will need to be removed” being used to meet the requirements of the site plan approval process?
JSpringer responded, “There are a few called out on the plans, 6 within the compound that will have to be removed. All those trees were used to meet the average tree canopy height, however, none of the trees will be removed.” GMorris, “If the trees within the graded area are coming down, then how can those trees be used for the average tree height calculation?”
AAndrus asked if after the site walk/review was done, would the height simulation test, take into account that the visual for half year is without no leaves, and what would this cell tower contribute to property devaluation?
KBreuer explained that each antenna is 200 watts per channel which is considered low powered.
JMoran asked, “Can those antennae be repurposed for a higher frequency?” JSpringer responded that AT&T can’t do a repurposing of the antennas without coming before the Board.
MLong, Cameron Way stated, “That with LTE (long term evolution) coming, will the same towers be used?” “Yes,” responded KBreuer, frequency engineer.
The owner/resident at 27 Longwood Road asked, “Are there any other towers that AT&T could co-locate on?” KBreuer, responded, “Yes, we are looking at Crotched Mountain in Francestown. Also, if there was another tower in the area, we’d be using it.”
AWood asked, “If the radio waves are a flat fan off of the top of tower, it appears there are houses at the same level as the radio way propagation” “Yes,” responded KBreuer.
PMarchand, AT&T rep, stated that, “He did the GPS reading on the original location, but the landowner didn’t want to have tower there, plus there were other issues at the original location. This site is the 2nd proposed location.”
CDumas, stated that he wasn’t an abutter, but that he was a “visual and sound abutter and I can hear the generators on Cornwell Road, so is AT&T proposing to have generator inside a structure?
The Planning Board, agreed to do a site walk. There will be a notice posted as to when site walk is scheduled. BMarshall also noted that when a height simulation test is done, that it will be up for hours and that the Board will be traveling to different locations to observe.
GMitchell encouraged the Planning Board to travel around the town while observing the height simulation test.
AAndrus asked that more details about the generator’s decibel rating/level be available to the Board, if any camouflage will be used on the tower and if the storage tank is an above/below unit. Is there any impact on the frequency if camouflage is required on tower? KBreuer responded, “Camouflage has no impact on frequency.”
JSpringer volunteered that the generator will be on a maintenance schedule.
PHopkins, asked “What is the assessed value of this facility when completed?” JSpringer responded, “$200 – 300 thousand. PHopkins commented that between a cell tower or wind generator, I’d rather see windmills rather than ‘oil’ wells on CMRC. He cautioned the Board to “think this through.”
SKnight: “My trees are spray painted, and your apology not sufficient. What has been done to the surrounding properties has not begun well as a ‘good neighbor’ and clearly will affect negatively our property values. The cell tower is directly in back of my house. I can’t imagine that the tree canopy figures you’ve come up are accurate. A corner of the fence appears to be 120’ from my property line. She cautioned the Board to be proactive as public health is impacted by the cell towers and to please keep this in back of your minds.”
JMoran asked, “How does Planning Board guarantee that the facility will maintain compliance with FCC regulations? He feels that the Planning Board should request that funding be given to the town so that the pole is always in compliance with FCC regulations.
GAustin commented, “This is in my backyard in a heavily forested, residential neighborhood, there is a fundamental problem with this location.” JSpringer commented that according to Town regulations that the tower is considered a permitted use in this zone.
KAustin, tenant of SKnight’s property, commented, “That the residents should be able to chose where a tower should be located.” She moved from New York to raise her child in a safe, environmentally friendly, rural location and having a cell tower in her backyard is not what she wants.”
KAnderson suggested the Planning Board ask what the effect the panels have in radiating power on human. Will the ERP numbers be located on the panels? How are the panels arranged on the tower? KBreuer responded the two panels will be side by side with spacing in between them.
JRenaud commented, “Remember that you) are coming here to “compete” so that some 22 year old can send a 5 minute video to his pal. If it’s dropped, oh well. But the consequence is that my property values are dropping so that you “can compete.”
10:42 pm a motion by MSteere to suspend public portion of site application. Vote unanimous.
A site walk is scheduled for June 23, 2010 at 6pm. The Public is welcome.
This hearing will continue on June 28, 2010 at 7:30 p.m. Once the site walk is complete, the Planning Board will decide what height simulation test will be done, balloon only or balloon and crane.
Mail received:
· Bill from Registry of Deed for planning board fees, bill for $2.00
· SWRPC commission highlight may 2010
· A year-to-date list of Building permits
· Select board meeting minutes from May 20, May 23
· Minor subdivision application from Tim Chandler – hearing will be scheduled for July 12
PHopkins - Received a registered complaint about a business being run out of a home that hasn’t come before the Town for permits. He feels that in good conscience, he can’t go after this individual without going after all the other businesses in town.
BMarshall wants an article to be put in Spirit about businesses being operated in homes and that they must come before the Planning Board with a site plan review.
MSteere motioned that proposed zoning ordinance discussed earlier in the meeting be accepted as written. JAdams seconded the motion.
GMorris called for a vote. MSteere, KOConnell and MBorden voted in the affirmative and JFletcher voted in the negative. Amendment passed.
BMarshall, “What is the next step that we need to do to be able to have vote on ballot for the primary in September? JAdams will check with LGC to see what steps have to be taken to have the vote done in September.
11:15 p.m., MBorden motioned that the hearing/meeting adjourned.
JAdams seconded the motion.
All Board members heartily agreed to adjourn for the evening.
| 
