Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes- September 27, 2010
Recorded by Bob Marshall
Members present: M Steere, MBorden, GMorris, KO’Connell, BMarshall, JFletcher, JAdams
7:06 Minutes
GMorris read the minutes from 9/13/2010. The following changes were made:
Line 29 Replace “to” with “…into…” to read “…to be read into…”.
Line 44 Replace “sub” with “…subdivision…” to read “Chandler subdivision”.
Line 49 Replace “ record” with “…be allowed to make an audio recording of…” to read “PRenaud requested that he be allowed to make an audio recording of the AT&T cell tower debrief.”
Line 50 Replace “OK with” to “ consented to” to read …that he consented to the recording”.
Line 52 Change “do” to “to” to read “…GMorris had sent to…”
Line 63 Remove “as” to read “…we will be doing it again.”
Line 65 Change “height” to “impact” to read “…that the impact will be erased.”
Line 71 Add “he” to read “Mike Borden commented he would….”.
Line 103 Insert “all” for “al” to read “ to place all utilities underground.”
Line 115 Change “if” to “is” to read “…of the waiver is…”
Line 118 Replace “form” with “from” to read “…exception from…”
Line 130 Insert “was to read” to read “…SKnight letter dated 9/13/10 was read into the record”.
Line 145 Replace “the proposed tower will have on a historic property has been thoroughly investigated and the findings are brought to the Board.” with “until the impact of the proposed tower on the historic property has been determined.” To read. “…refrain from making a decision until the impact of the proposed tower on the historic property has been determined.”
Line 178 Change the word “show” to “shown” to read “…the elevations shown on each…”
Line 189 Remove the word “be” to read “…how it will impact…”
Line 192 Remove the word “batteries” to read “ Lithium, when exposed to air,…”
Line 203 Replace “He” with “JMoran” to read “JMoran also feels…”
Line 217 Replace …”historical society” with “ …the Florida Tower Partners Application for historical review” to read “…that she be considered a consulting party to the Florida Tower Partners application for Historical Review.”
Line 235 Delete “to September 27” to read “…cell tower debriefs closed and will be continued…”
Line 257 Add after the last sentence. “The motion carried”.
Line 269 After indemnification, add “from his client, Mr. Chandler…”
Line 290 After the last sentence add “The motion carried.”
Line 298 After She, add “is” to read “She is …”
JFletcher moved to accept the minutes as amended. All in favor, the motion carries.
7:40 p.m. AT&T Cell Tower-Continuation of hearing
GMorris circulated the sign-in sheet for the Public Hearing continuation. He stated that the purpose of tonight’s hearing was to hear the results of a Radio Frequency Study conducted by the Town’s consultant Mark Hutchins from Brattleboro, Vermont. He noted that the report has been posted on line and a hard copy is available for public review in the Town Office.
Present for the Hearing were:
Mark Hutchins-Radio Frequency Engineer-Consultant to Town of Greenfield
JSpringer-Attorney representing AT&T
Kevin Breuer-Radio Frequency Engineer, Florida Tower Partners
Peter Marchand-AT&T representative
Randy Hause- Radio Frequency Engineer, Florida Tower Partners
PRenaud requested permission to make an audio recording of the proceedings. There were no objections so he recorded the session. GMorris requested that the public please direct any questions for Mr. Hutchins to him to expedite the discussions.
7:45 Presentation of findings by Mark Hutchins to the Planning Board.
Mr. Hutchins proceeded to explain his report. He noted that recent court decisions have found that if a need for coverage was demonstrated and no other options could be found for alternative site locations, that generally speaking, Boards must approve applications to be in compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. He noted that in recent years, telecommunication companies have found that both in-automobile and in-building coverage was desirable for their customers. As technology has changed and smaller radios have emerged, there is a greater need for cell towers. Additionally, smaller cell phones are using higher frequencies which creates more demand and these higher frequencies are more susceptible to interference from terrain features.
His findings are contained in his report (on file). Essentially he finds that:
1. AT&T had demonstrated a need.
2. He reported he used the Okumura model for corroborating analysis and that his findings essentially confirm AT&T’s analysis for PCS coverage.
3. He examined the Site Search materials submitted and concludes that the nearest AT&T facilities are unable to be adjusted to provide needed coverage. In addition, another facility will be needed to cover existing gaps in the area Southeast of Gould Hill.
4. He concludes that the proposed antenna height will result in ground level exposure significantly below FCC Maximum Permissible Exposure levels, even with co-locators present, provided AT&T properly limits access.
He stated that he sees problems with our Ordinance in the way we measure height of the tree canopy. He felt that the 90 foot tower requested by AT&T was reasonable.
GMorris asked “If a cell tower is located directly outside my bedroom, how far should I be from the antenna for me to be safe from radio frequencies. MHutchins said “The actual center of radiation is actually 3-4 feet below the top of the tower for the higher antenna arrays. From that point, any distance beyond 15 feet would fall below Maximum Permissible Exposure levels and be considered safe.”
GMorris then asked “How do we know whether or not the equipment stays within FCC guidelines?” MHutchins stated that it is contrary to the best interest (increased cost) of the company to generate any more radiation than necessary to deliver their service. The equipment is not designed to be hot wired or changed because that would exceed specifications of the equipment. Additionally, increasing the “background noise” of increased frequencies would hinder the delivery of their services.
KO'Connell asked if they had data for an 80 foot tower for Gould Hill. MHutchins stated that AT&T did not.
GMorris asked if the Fletcher Farm Road proposed site was a better location. MHutchins said that it was not for a tower of similar size. JFletcher asked if a tower on the Fletcher Farm Road of 140’ would be a better site. JAdams commented that that would surely impact views. MHutchins replied that a 140’ Tower on Fletcher Farm Road would create shadows west of Gould Hill and therefore not be a better alternative. Looking at Exhibit 4a from AT&T, I think that shows that we get good coverage from Gould Hill…remembering they must cover state highways and population centers. As far as location goes, it is hard to beat the top of small hills.
GMorris asked for clarification: “So, the Telecommunications act of 1996 requires that we must allow cell towers. If other good sites are not available, and we don’t have strong reasons to refuse, we must approve the application? MHutchins replied “You cannot deny service.”
GMorris then asked “Are there other technologies available? MHutchins said there are others but they have their own inherent problems. You could place small antennas on poles every few hundred feet. This would require new fiber optic infrastructure and in places where they have done this, people found antenna poles installed not in their back yards but in front of their properties…something they did not want.
GMorris then asked “If co-users come in the future, can the tower go higher. MHutchins said yes it could but the applicant would need to reapply. JSpringer stated that AT&T will need another tower if this one goes through to fill the gap toward the southeast.
JAdams asked if a 90’ tower on top of Gould Hill would eliminate the need for another tower. MHutchins replied “If the tower goes on top of the Gould Hill you will not need another tower.
KO'Connell asked if any co-locators could use lower frequencies? MHutchins stated they could since lower frequencies are less affected by terrain etc.
MSteere asked if a 140 ‘ tower at the proposed site would have the same impact as a 90’ tower on top of the hill? He was referred to AT&T Exhibit that showed a 148 ‘ tower and it could be seen that it would not.
8:40 p.m. Questions from the public.
GAustin asked if there was any location in Greenfield on which a tower would provide coverage for the whole area? MHutchins responded that he didn’t believe so. It would have to be so high that that it couldn’t be approved because of height, setback requirements, fall zones and other requirements of the ordinance etc.
You need to be able to go both east and west and Gould Hill is in the way.
GMorris asked Kevin Breuer “When you did the reviews, did you find anything else that might have worked. KBreuer responded that that was not how they do their planning.
JSpringer commented that we must remember that the Town had decided, through acceptance of this ordinance, that they didn’t want high towers. The ordinance was probably never reviewed by a Radio Frequency engineer. Maybe the town should hire MHutchins to identify sites that would work given this ordinance.
PRenaud asked “Is it your opinion that there would be a lot more sites if we didn’t have this ordinance?” MHutchins replied “ 20 feet above the trees is very restrictive. It may be unrealistic.” When asked about the viability of co-location, MHutchins stated that “Even with a height of 90 feet, it may be problematic but is not a deal breaker.”
GMorris then asked how many carriers were licensed for this area. After a brief discussion, JSpringer and MHutchins seemed to agree there were 6.
JMoran commented that we’re in the midst of technological development. In addition there may be changes in the Telecommunications act of 1996. Several moving things are going on. We’ve had inaccuracies in the application. People’s property has been violated. Shouldn’t we be measuring compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996?
MHutchins responded that there have been some problems with high powered broadcasts and with some condo applications where antennas were installed close to residences. He did not feel that it was necessary to measure for compliance. He advised the PB that they could request a declaratory ruling by the FCC but it was his opinion not to bother…it would be expensive and the FCC would be unlikely to comply with the request.
JMoran suggested that the tower could be purchased by someone else. We would have no idea what they repurposed that pole to do. How would we monitor that?
GMorris asked how we know that they stay with the boundaries of the permit.
JAdams reiterated that they have no financial incentive to do more than what they have requested permission to do. MHutchins agreed saying that if anything goes wrong on the site, they would know immediately and would repair it quickly.
JMoran stated that we are concerned about open-handed dealing. There is a precedent for people in this business to repurpose equipment. There are many ways to manipulate technology for financial gain. We are within our rights to be self-protective.
MSteere stated that any additions to or repurposing of this site is subject to PB Site Plan Review.
SKnight asked MHutchins if he had looked at the Meeting House Steeple as a location. MHutchins responded that he had not looked at it for this site review but had investigated it for the previous AT&T site to the north and found that it only provided coverage to the immediate downtown area. He also suggested that it was a good question but noted three concerns:
1. Such sites can typically only accommodate one provider.
2. The structure of old steeples may not accept antennas and the building may not accommodate other equipment needed.
3. Almost always, you run into historical preservation questions.
GMorris added that we had asked that question at the first Tower application on Forest Road and found it not to be a viable location. It provided little coverage outside of the center of Town.
SKnight continued that she is urging the use of more creative ways to solve this problem.
MHutchins said he had addressed this in his letter. He noted the Town of Hancock had gone to a higher tower to accommodate needs.
SKnight continued “If a co-locator comes and says this tower is inadequate, we want to build one over here… How can the PB deny that application?
MHutchins said the PB would need to have the applicant prove that the tower wouldn’t work. We would have evidence to prove/disprove the need.
SKnight responded “Suppose the evidence shows that yes, the applicant is right?”
MHutchins responded that absent compelling evidence, the applicant would have to use the existing tower. So you would have some control there.
MBorden asked SKnight “Using your steeple example, where would all the additional equipment go?”
KO'Connell asked where the antennas would be mounted- on the surface of or inside the steeple. MHutchins responded that mounting them inside might necessitate a change in the building materials of the steeple.
EAnderson referred to Exhibit 3 of the Network Application (coverage maps). If we turned off Gould Hill and turned all the other towers on, what would that look like. I contend that there is a fair amount of overlap.
MHutchins responded that no coverage from the Sawmill Road site gets down to the center of town. For in-vehicle coverage, it is important to have overlapping coverage.
EAnderson requested that GMorris request the applicant to run a coverage exhibit 3 without Gould Hill turned on. He then noted that the applicant claimed that he had no coverage southeast of Gould Hill and his application sets coverage for that area as a goal. Therefore, the application is flawed.
MHutchins responded that what Gould Hill does provide is some coverage to the South to Zephyr Lake…clearly that helps. When asked about the potential of using a focus beam in town, KBreuer stated that they have approximately 180 degrees in coverage to the North. They would not be shooting toward the South. If we’re not getting coverage to the South, we probably wouldn’t transmit to that area.
SKnight asked MHutchins how many times he had disagreed with applications? MHutchins responded that he almost never had disagreed with the applicant’s need for coverage. More often, he finds himself helping. Typically he throws it back to the PB to decide. If a tower is not approved, then they’ll need more towers. About 10% of his reviews get though unchanged.
GMorris then asked if there were any more questions from the public. There were none.
JFletcher asked MHutchins if tower builders could add extensions to towers. MHutchins responded that the best time to discuss that was during the planning stages as you might need a more substantial structure to support additional antennas.
9:40 p.m. Continuance of the Public hearing
GMorris then began discussion of rescheduling the continuance of the hearing. JSpringer responded that in light of the balloon test on Sept 30, the Historical Assessment and time he needed to comply with PB requests for information, he would like to continue the hearing until October 25. GMorris agreed. The hearing was continued to October 25, 2010 at 7:30 p.m.
GMorris then asked MHutchins if he would be interested in reviewing our Cell Tower Ordinance and make recommendations. He also asked that he might be contracted to review the whole town looking for good potential sites. GMorris and MHutchins agreed to continue the discussion via e-mail.
9:45 Mail
· Copy of an easement given by Mr. Chandler to Mr. Bosse for driveway access
· Voluntary Merger of orphaned lot by Mr. Chandler. MSteere moved to accept the merger. MBorden seconded. All in favor, the motion passed.
· Memorandum of Lease between Brown and Florida Tower Partners
· Letter from Springer Law Office PLLC agreeing to extension of public hearing to September 27, 2010.
· Mark Hutchins report on Gould Hill Tower Application
· Advertising for on-line mapping services.
· Monadnock Transymposium-sustainable transportation workshop
· Copy of NH City and Town Magazine.
· Notice from Administrative Assistant of budget deadlines
· UNH Workshops -_Raingarden Training
Landscaping at the water’s edge
· Selectmen minutes from 9-9-10 and 9-16-10
· Crotched Mt Ski Area Ski Passes information
· SWRPC-Order form for Planning and Regulations Manual
· NH Broadband Mapping workshop in Peterborough 10/4/10
· Town of Fitzwilliam-notice of Cell Tower Hearing October 5, 2010 7:30 p.m.
· Chandler Subdivision Plat
10:00 p.m. Budget discussion
MSteere suggested some budget adjustments considering spending patterns of this year. As a result the PB agreed to increase the clerical line to $2000 and reduce the legal/Professional services to $11,500. MSteere moved to approve the changes. JAdams seconded. All in favor. The motion passed. The PB agreed to review clerical wages for the next year and would use the Town evaluation form to evaluate the performance of Sharon Rossi and determine wage adjustments.
MBorden moved to adjourn the meeting. JFletcher seconded. All in favor .The motion passed.
| 
