Preliminary Planning Board
Meeting Minutes –
Minutes recorded by Sharon Rossi
Members present: GMorris, MSteere, MBorden, BMarshall, JFletcher, KO’Connell
Mail Rec’d: Town & City Nov 2010 publication
1. Invite to employee/volunteer Xmas party on December 14
2. Senior Xmas dinner party December 9
3. Selectmen 11/4 meeting minutes
4. SWRPC October 2010 highlights
5. Todd Land Use Consultants, LLB, 336 Francestown Rd – plat of proposed well easement CMRC, Map R-2, Lot 11 & Cyrus W Gregg, Map R-2, Lot 14, CMRC Rd, Greenfield, NH
6. Letter from State of NH Environmental Services re: Sawmill Estates amending RSA 485-A:17; Alteration of Terrain Permit WPS-8315. The amendment consists of a 5 year extension. Letter on file.
7. Letter from SChicoine re: construction of cell tower at 46 Zephyr Lake Rd
8. Letter from Silas Little, Fernald, Taft, Falby&Little re: construction of cell tower at 46 Zephyr Lake Rd
At 7:03 pm, MSteere began reading the November 8, 2010 meeting minutes. The only change was to Line 35: changed the date from November 25 to November 22, 2010.
At 7:23 pm: MBorden motioned that the November 22 meeting minutes be accepted as amended. MSteere seconded the motion. Motion carried.
General Discussion: KO’Connell offered PHopkin’s concern about getting a clarification on frontage measurement for setback requirements from property line in the Town’s regulations.
46 Zephyr Lake Road Cell Tower Application:
At 7:30 pm the public portion continued. It was hoped that the report from SHIPO would have been received. PRenaud asked if the meeting could be recorded. There was no objection from the applicant or the Board. JSpringer presented revised plans to the Board.
· Instead of tri-cornered array, a squared shaped one will be installed; no antennae will be pointing directly toward Gould Hill. (Z4)
· The grading of the driveway has been changed which is shown on page Z6. Also there was a change to accommodate the hammer head turn around.
· Added landscaping to reduce noise as well. Noise report did not take in account the retaining wall. Two sides of retaining wall decreases noise, but still awaiting noise report from sound engineer.
· Added additional fencing on top of the retaining wall for safety.
· The culvert size was changed from 12’ to 15’.
· Have a letter to the Board from Darren Webber, Infinigy Eng, for a waiver request addressing the slope issue. JSpringer explained that the letter goes through the slope analysis with recalculated slope increments and addresses the turnout issue. We could do a lot of gravel removal to meet the driveway regulations, but it’s not worth it, thus the waiver request.
· Also have an updated visual evaluation report (balloon float) was given to the Board which includes an additional float done in November. Much of the report is the same as an earlier report. On November 9, we took additional photos at Ms Knight’s property. (Small photos at bottom of page numbers 20 & 21.)
· No report from SHIPO, re: adverse affects.
· KBreuer, our RF engineer, has a report where everything is turned on but Gould Hill. Unfortunately, he’s not here to give you the report, so we’ll get it to you. GMorris asked if the Board had any further questions for the applicant before he opens the public portion of the hearing. The consensus was no.
7:45 reopened public hearing portion for new information only.
JMatthias, who recently purchased the Littlejohn property which abuts the proposed site, stated, “We are opposed to construction of this cell tower. The letter from SChicoine which was read at the opening of meeting states very validate points and with coverage from alternative sites, such as Hancock tower, brings to table, as to why this site is needed. This tower is located very close to my home, which is diagonally across from the tower. I feel that alternatives can be found.”
GMitchell asked, “Is this is the same attorney and engineer that did the proposal for the Top of the World location (Sawmill Road)? Well, those people lie. I would like RF engineers to see what is happening here and now, especially as how I now am going to have to look at the tower. Due diligence wasn’t done. This is a small community and we don’t need a lot of what is happening. The government has mandated that we have to have the cell abilities in all the small areas, but AT&T has got 95 % coverage in US, so why Greenfield? I feel that an independent RF engineer is needed to evaluate this application. Also what is the slope of the driveway? 19% down, regulation is 5%, be careful you can't do for one without doing for another. I’m really concerned about the setting of
precedent in the way things are done in town." GMorris stated these reports will be placed in the town office for anyone to read.
EAnderson has requested 20 minutes to make a presentation which he will do after all questions are asked by the audience. Mrs. Wood, in hearing the comments about the fire chief’s statement, I didn’t hear them, what was his comment? GMorris responded, “The fire chief commented at the site review in August that they can get equipment up there if they need to.” BMarshall clarified that the fire chief’s statement as, “I would need a hammerhead turn at the top of the driveway.”
PRenaud believes the fire chief will not be able to get equipment up that driveway. The applicants are non-compliant with 7 different areas of this application and the applicants are not the owners of this property. He mentioned the fact that there has been repeated testimony about the marginality of co-location sites, if this tower is granted, we know other communication companies will be asking for new towers. He asks that a real estate appraiser do a de-evaluation study of the properties on Gould Hill because this will de-evaluate our property. PRenaud submitted report covering his concerns.
GAustin would like a written report from the Fire Chief offering clarification of which vehicles can and can’t make it up this driveway.
GMitchell asked, “Who is fire chief now?” BMarshall responded, “Loren White.” LWhite for a lesser slope for the driveway; equipment can’t make it up a hill. He needs to make up his mind. Co-location on tower, AT&T wants their own tower and they don’t want to have co-locators on their towers. What this gentleman said, is true. One tower went in and now there are 4 or 5.
SKnight, “The draft easement that was presented for the vegetative buffer is to be 150’ from the fence according to the Town’s ordinance. I don’t believe that is reflected in the draft easement. Ordinance also says that trees are not to be removed or topped, I don’t believe that is accurate. The easement should be written to reflect the requirements of the ordinance. I’ve provided photos from the second balloon test and anyone who was present saw the incredible disparity from first and second tests. I have no idea what this tower will look like as we’ve had two different presentations as to what the tower will be. I have copies of a photo shopped picture showing the tower with 3 co-locators on it from photos taken in August. It is clearly visible from my
property. Photos are being given to the Board for your information.
JMatthias also registered for A&S Cornwell, who reside off Slip Rd, their disapproval of the project.
GMitchell asked, “What are the dimensions from the end of each sector, and depth of the antenna?" DWebber responded, “12’6” per sector, and approximately 5’ deep. GMitchell stated "If you are standing right under it you can see through it. It’s almost opaque when seeing it close up, but as you move further away, the angle shows and you will see it more clearly.”
EAnderson, 104 Gould Hill Rd, made his opening statement about RF coverage in Greenfield area. I am trying to provide an alternative site for the tower and not to shoot holes in the application. Also I would like to introduce IPagacizk, RF engineer hired by the abutters to make an additional presentation.
His presentation showed slides where existing towers are (in red) in Peterborough and Lyndeborough. The Peterborough tower provides no coverage to Greenfield, and one tower in Lyndeborough provides coverage to some of Greenfield. He chose to use AT&T coverage map because it is simple to read and provides an abundance of information, such as vehicle coverage which is very good until Oak Park on Forest Rd. AT&T most important targeted coverage objective is to provide coverage in the center of Greenfield, and the Gould Hill site really doesn’t actually meet the AT&T goals. The Crotched Mountain site (proposed) is almost 2000’ with a 100’ tower, there is a compelling amount of coverage from that tower. When the Crotched Mountain (proposed) and Sawmill Road sites are
activated, those two towers will cover the current gap for AT&T and the Gould Hill location will be covered by these towers and what little is left to be covered, there is an alternative site, Blanchard Hill.
GMitchell asked, “Is there an overlay of those two sites to clearly visualize the coverage?” EAnderson did put up a slide which showed this coverage. JSpringer asked, “What were the parameters that you used for the coverage map?” EAnderson responded, “The Sawmill Rd site was 97’ base with elevation at 1,023 feet, 1900 MHz, the Crotched Mountain tower 100’ base with elevation at 2,024 feet and I limited the stand to 8 kilometers. He used a software program called MicroDEM for analysis, data from US Geological Seamless Server and used G/Raster which took the date from the US Geological Seamless Server.
EAnderson then introduced, Ivan Pagacizk, IDK Communications, who has been retained by abutters to review application material on the subject property. IPagacizk stated that he has been doing peer reviews since 1996 and has 24 years in Radio Frequency experience.
IPagacizk commented that it is important here to have a clear understanding of the RF coverage, with footprints from current and proposed sites, to analyze the proposed site offering and what alternatives have been analyzed by the applicant, also has concerns about co-locators at the site, and to know that when you sell co-location sites which can be all the way to the bottom of the tower, but because of the tree canopy are not going to be extensive. Also density play important role at the higher frequencies.
GMorris asked for clarification of the colors on the report that were handed to the Board. He commented that the color codes were on maps.
IPagacizk said, “Another possible location is the Blanchard Hill Rd, while not solving all the problems of gaps to the center of Greenfield, it does give coverage to the eastern part of town. This provides options to the applicant.”
BMarshall asked, “Have you run a coverage chart showing the Gould Hill Rd tower site?” No responded IPagacizk. MSteere asked, “Have you run a coverage map for the Crotched Mountain location, with the Hancock location?” Yes, commented, IPagacizk and EAnderson. Crotched Mountain and Sawmill were turned on at 1900 MHz”
KO’Connell asked, “With 2.4 GHz, what is the range of a site? How can the wave length be tuned? Is an antenna array? According to the tilting of the antenna, will it allow the calls to come through?” IPagacizk said, “It all depends upon topography, tree density, city density, 2.4 GHz a little less for range, 1900 GHz could cover miles, depending upon power output, equipment used.”
JSpringer, stated, “We need the coverage, and that is why we are looking at the Zephyr Lake site.”
GMitchell asked about shadowing effect, where they are locating tower on Sawmill Rd, and if you get to read the SMcAuliffe decision in which he said that the Sawmill Rd will cover all of Route 31 corridor, which is BS. Any where there is a shadow, no coverage is happening.
8:51 pm GMorris suspended public portion of the 46 Zephyr Lake Road Cell Tower Application.
GMorris will call SHIPO to find out where report is. This case will resume on December 13 at 7:30 p.m.
General Discussion: KO’Connell offered PHopkin’s concern about getting a clarification on frontage measurement for setback requirements from property line in the Town’s regulations.
9:02 p.m. GMorris asked if there was any new business to be brought before the Board. He asked that everyone to go back and review their material. KO’Connell asked if the VTOL committee considered hours of operation? BMarshall commented that as a result of tonight’s meeting we need to get LWhite to answer our questions at our next public meeting.
9:10 p.m. MSteere motioned that the meeting adjourned. MBorden seconded. Motion carried.
| 
