Planning Board
Meeting Minutes – October 25, 2010
Minutes recorded by Sharon Rossi
Members present: GMorris, BMarshall (sitting in for MBorden), JFletcher, KO’Connell JAdams
JSpringer, Attorney for applicant
KBreurer, RF engineer
PMarchand, AT&T rep
JStevens, Infinigy rep
DRathore, AT&T rep
DHaskell, Florida Towers Partners rep
7:04 pm Start of Meeting
Minutes:
The October, 11 2010 meeting minutes were read. The following changes were made to the October 11, 2010 meeting minutes:
Line 66: corrected the spelling of Pierce Rygord’s last name to Rigord and corrected Environment to Environmental.
Line 76: removed the word ‘to’ from sentence.
Line 82: added the word ‘the’ to the sentence: to read as: “….as a guide for the CMRC’s new zone.”
Line 111: changed the word ‘is’ to ‘are;’ to read as: ”…. Ploughshare/Lyris are the only three institutional areas in Greenfield that the Planning Board is aware of at this time.”
Line 123: remove the word ‘is’ from the sentence; to read as: “…if he identifies sites and….”
Line 124: added a ‘d’ at the end of the word license
Line 141: add the word ‘is’ and ‘?’ to the sentence; to read as: “…if this cell tower is erected?”
Line 142: added ‘s’ to the word tower
Line 153: change the word ‘that’ to ‘the’; to read as: “GMorris asked the Board to bring any proposed changes for town meeting.”
Line 159: add the word ‘an’ to the sentence
Line 188: added open and closed quotes to “is an out and out lie.”
At 7:20pm JAdams motioned that the October 11 meeting minutes be accepted as amended. JFletcher seconded the motion. Motion passed.
Mail Rec’d:
· SWRPC Fall notice of Annual meeting to be held on November 6, 2010
· SWPRC Monadnock Transymposium announcement
· NHDES newsletter for Fall 2010
· Letter from the town administrative assistant asking that the Planning Board put effort in submitting an article for the Greenfield Spirit for 11/1
· 2 yr PB budget report Jan 2010 to Sept 2010
· Selectman meeting minutes for September 14 and 24
· A copy of a letter from the Board of Adjustment to Attorney Douglas Wilkins, rep for AT&T advising that the Board of Adjustment “does grant variance as requested.”
· GMorris read letter from Susan Knight, placed in file
· GMorris read letter from SChicoine, placed in file
· GMorris read letter from the Landry's, placed in file
· Package from Anderson & Krieger, re: Jean Cernota, 515 Sawmill Rd, Greenfield, NH
General Discussion:
GMorris talked with SMcDonough and she is getting a letter to Planning Board regarding CMRC approval for project.
Zephyr Lake Road Cell Tower Application:
GMorris stated to the public that all letters will be available to the Board for deliberations. The Board is still waiting for the State of NH Historical Society report on their balloon test and site visit.
BMarshall asked about a point of order, “What is our time frame like at this application?” JSpringer replied, “Not sure where we are, but will gladly ask for an extension.”
PRenaud asked to record meeting. No objections were expressed by the applicant or the PB.
JSpringer stated that he has new information to present. There are revised plans showing a change in the design of the tower to a “mono-pine” to try to address the visual issue. (pg Z4) He also stated that they know they have to go before the Board of Adjustment for a height variance and will ask that the shaft be 90’ and ask that 4’ be added for the top so the pole looks like a tree. The structure doesn’t affect the pole’s co-location.
JSpringer apologized that the applicant wasn’t as prepared as they should have been and to the way we approached this application. He realizes that there is concern that this is not liked, but this is a permitted used. He handed a letter to the Board addressing the many issues that have been raised.
JSpringer handed out a revised noise report. There was a lot of discussion about the noise report with a lot of comments from the abutters complaining that we didn’t account for all possible co-locations. He studied the noise ordinance and nowhere in the ordinance does it say that we have to account for co-locators noise levels. The study assumes there will be 3 carriers on the pole and also, assumes that one generator will be used for one carrier and none for the second carrier. When all the equipment is running together, we meet the daytime noise ordinance, 58 decibels, but towards one property line at nighttime, the level is 61 decibels. There is no requirement that the initial applicant meet all the noise requirements for 3 co-locators.
Vegetative buffer: ordinance says a buffer has to be 150’ from tower and we meet that requirement in all directions save one, which is the westerly line. (pg Z8) We just barely miss it. JSpringer asks that the Board to consider a decrease from the 150 requirement for the westerly line. If the Board is not willing to decrease the requirement, then we’ll have to change the grade of the driveway.
Landscape easement: JSpringer submitted a buffer easement but usually this is done after the application has been approved. Also he noted that the owner hasn’t seen the easement yet. There is added landscaping which will help mitigate the sound and hide the installation more. 6’ tall trees will be added to site. (pg Z3)
Fall zone: SChicoine raised the issue of the fall zone which is outside the compound area. JSpringer stated the fall zone is fully compliant.
Utilities: we are proposing to use the existing overhead poles coming off Zephyr Lake Rd, and then will go underground past the landowner’s house.
Fire dept: At the last meeting, the Planning Board reported what the Fire Chief recommended. The slope of road will be brought before the Board of Adjustment. The wetlands report submitted in April by AD Klumb addresses the issues raised by the ordinance. We feel that report stands as is.
The current driveway will be used but will be adding 6” of crushed gravel. The new portion that is being created will follow the Town’s driveway requirements. The generator used will be probably be one phase which is typical of AT&T installations.
BMarshall asked, “Are you proposing to put a fence along the retaining wall? JSpringer responded, “We can do it, and had been talked about it previously.” KO’Connell questioned, “Is the current driveway a sufficient width?” “Yes, it is.” KO’Connell asked, “Why would a 2nd generator be installed, why not share?” JSpringer doesn’t know the answer to that question.
BMarshall said the new plans do not show where the array will be. KBreuer responded that it will be a 180 degrees broadcast array facing outward not to the back of the hill.
KO’Connell asked if the storage tank is double walled, what will contain the spill if a valve ruptures?” JStevens, Infinigy rep replied, “A lip will be in the concrete slab that the tank sits on.”
EAnderson asked that a model be run with the towers at Sawmill Road, CMRC’s existing tower, the two towers in Peterborough, and the tower on Rt 31 in Lyndeborough all turned on and the Zypher Lake Road tower turned off to see what the gap in coverage would be.
BMarshall asked for clarification about the turning off the Zypher Lake Road site to see what the difference in coverage would be.
KO’Connell said that there were two alternative locations, but that 1st site has covenants so this location is the second choice. GMorris read the Tamposi letter re: covenants.
BMarshall questioned whether or not the covenants should impact on the Planning Board’s decision within the development. “I was under the impression that our lawyer said not to consider the covenants, as it is a civil matter.”
PMarchand, AT&T rep stated that the 1st site had both AT&T and the landowner’s attorney discuss the covenant issue and location and the landowner’s attorney advised him, “No, to the proposal due to the existing covenant issue.”
JAdams asked that the public portion be re-opened at 8:28 pm. GMorris continued the public portion at 8:29 pm.
JRenaud asked if the info that KO’Connell just brought up is that part of the packet? GMorris responded, “No, it is part of the minutes.” JFletcher commented that the alternate site was included in the original packet. PMarchand said that he had no letter from the first site’s land owner’s attorney stating that. PRenaud asked if once the public portion was closed and new information became available, would the public portion be re-opened and how will the public be notified. GMorris replied via a public notice.
BMarshall asked that significant new information be the requirement to re-open the public portion, and that as a Board, we will not know until we see it and that there could be a time delay two weeks in notifying the public.
GAustin commented about the sound study in that he feels the assumption needs to be clarified and that the sound study doesn’t have a diagram showing the trees.
AWood is still asking for a clarification of driveway ordinance and will the Planning Board make the decision on the percentage of slope, not as public driveway, but for AT&T and emergency vehicles only. He still has concerns about fuel storage and batteries with toxic contaminates. He feels the fuel tank should be doubled walled. The fail safe measures need to be stringent.
CDumas again asked if the applicant had reviewed section 1 2 3 of our regulations about existing structures for co-location in town.
SChicoine feels that the 150’ buffer area is less than that. He also asked, “Will this tower be constructed in such way that it can be added to at a later date?” JSpringer said, “No.”
SChicoine also questioned that the height of the antennas above ground was modeled correctly. He questioned, “Is the tower’s latitude and longitude in table 2 is still accurate and
what are the panel heights from the ground?”
GMorris said all the collected letters, separated by writers, will be part of deliberations, and all of issues will be addressed and some could require further information from an expert.
PRenaud commented on the driveway diagram and pointed that the actual beginning of the new driveway (Z6) appears to have is a 20 – 40’ difference. JSpringer said that on Z5 shows it more clear. “At the culvert, at the 900 foot mark, is the start of the new driveway,” according to JStevens, Infinigy engineer.
EAnderson asked, “What is your back haul strategy for connections? Will be it fiber or T1?” KBreuer responded, “T1. Fairpoint is going to do the connecting.”
EAnderson asked, “What method of RF analysis, what model did you use, Longley Rice?” KBreuer said he a used mathematical analysis projected on collected data using real data, taken point by point.”
EAnderson asked, “If anybody on the Board had access to an AT&T phone? While driving south on Route 31 my AT&T phone shows full coverage.” He also questioned the analysis for the tower by MHutchins.
SChicoine commented that the EPA recommends a noise level of 45 decibels.
PRenaud asked for verification that Florida Tower is the applicant and not AT&T. JSpringer is their agent.
GMorris noted that the Board is still waiting for the State of NH Historical Society report. He queried the Board, “Would you be comfortable to starting deliberations without this report?”
EAnderson wants in the record the height of the historical balloon flight at 84’.
JAdams advised that limited discussion from public will be allowed on the two issues. EAnderson asked, “Can I present my RF analysis at the next public portion of the cell tower meeting?” GMorris asked that he present his credentials at that time. JSpringer asked if he had designed a system. EAnderson replied, “Yes.” PRenaud previously submitted a driveway analysis, ”Can I present an addendum on my driveway analysis on slope issues?” GMorris replied, “Yes.”
9:09 pm GMorris suspended the public portion of this meeting and it will continue on November 22, 2010 at 7:30 pm.
JAdams asked does that Board really need to have a letter from the attorney the first location on Gould Hill saying that they wouldn’t allow the tower? GMorris, “If we decide that we need the letter I will e-mail JSpringer.” It was decided that no letter is needed.
GMorris and KO'Connell signed the site plan review for Sawmill Road Cell Tower application and attached the ZBA letter dated October 8, 2010.
JAdams motioned to adjourn at 9:31 pm. JFletcher seconded motion. Motion carried.
| 
