Greenfield Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes- December 20, 2010
Recorded by Bob Marshall
Members present: GMorris, KO’Connell, BMarshall(sitting in for MBorden), JAdams
7:22 Minutes
GMorris read the minutes from 12/13/2010. The following changes were made:
Line 47: Change 1900 GHz to read “1900 MHz”
Line 54: After Tower application. Insert “No objections were raised.”
Line 87: insert the word “be” after “able to” so it reads ” …that it would be able to be accessible…”
Line 90: Insert Close quote to read …rather than a steep one would be better.”
Line 113: Insert close quote to the sentence “Do you feel an ambulance could access that site?”
Line 121: Replace the word “warranted” with “wanted”.
Line 138: Change 1900 GHz to “1900 MHz”
Line 195: Insert the word “hearing” to read “…that the public hearing portion of the meeting…”
Line 204: after the word start insert “to determine” to read “we should start to determine how ...”
Line 210: Remove “BMarshall motioned to close the public portion.” and replace with “BMarshall moved the question to close the public hearing.”
A letter from Stephen Chicoine sought to correct the minutes of 12/13/2010:
Line 155: Correct the spelling of ADOLL to read “ATOLL”
Line 155: After color plots, insert “… used on Exhibits 1-6B in the application of ATT dated May 6, 2010.”
JAdams moved to accept the minutes as amended. KO’Connell seconded. All in favor, the motion carried.
7:50 Mail
1. Letter from Stephen Chicoine regarding preliminary minutes from Dec 13, 2010.
2. List of elected Town officials for Greenfield and their terms of office.
3. Copy of a request for Project Review of the Slip Road right of way over Otter Brook from NH
Division of Historical Resources
4. Copy of Selectmen’s Meeting minutes for December 9, 2010.
5. List of Town of Greenfield Department Heads.
6. CD of the recording of the December 13, 2010 Planning Board meeting.
7:56 Consideration of Ballot Questions for 2011 Town Meeting
Vertical Take-off and Landing Ordinance
Discussion began about the Vertical Take-off and Landing Ordinance. GMorris is in receipt of an e-mail form a citizen suggesting that the 250 foot setback from property lines would create too small a space to land and take-off between property boundaries. It was felt that the setbacks should be greater.
Discussion followed about whether or not the ordinance applied to non-residents: i.e. could someone else come in to pick up a resident at their property. It was agreed that the right to take-off and land extended only to landowners.
KO’Connell asked if we should consider the size of the vehicle and hours of operation?
JAdams felt that we needed to keep the ordinance as simple and clear as possible.
GMorris wondered if the ordinance would violate the Noise Ordinance. Reading from the Noise Ordinance, he found that the daytime (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) maximum noise level was 68 db, and nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) maximum noise level was 58 db. He also felt that a helicopter would be considered a vehicle.
BMarshall suggested that we needed to determine what the average noise level for a helicopter was to determine if it would violate the Noise Ordinance.
KO'Connell asked whether or not we should use Visual Flight Rules (VFR) or Instrument Flight Rules(IFR) to determine what kind of licensure would be necessary for someone to use the Ordinance. No decision was made about flight rules.
It was agreed that the ordinance should remain as it is with the 250 foot setback requirement and that hours of take-off and landing be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Ground Water Protection Ordinance
Discussion turned to the Groundwater Protection Ordinance. Carol Irvin, Chair of the ConCom , stated that they were proposing an ordinance this spring and as such, the Conservation Commission really did not have the time to think through the Groundwater Ordinance and bring it forward.
BMarshall listed over ten items that needed to be addressed before the ordinance could be put out for public hearing and that there simply was not enough time to complete the work necessary and still make the public hearing calendar. He moved that we postpone proposing the Ordinance until the 2012 Town Meeting. KO'Connell seconded the motion. All in favor, the motion carried.
Institutional Zoning
GMorris handed out copies of the proposed Institutional Zoning Ordinance. He proposed that this be inserted into the Zoning Ordinance under Special Purpose Districts.
JAdams suggested that these districts be identified by area: perhaps it would be best to identify the district by lot numbers. It was agreed that the name of the District should be Crotched Mountain Rehabilitation and Education Center District.
KO’Connell suggested that such a district would still be covered by the Site Plan Review process.
In his discussions with the Crotched Mountain Center, GMorris noted that they had talked about the creation of a Wind Energy System for use by the center. They were not proposing to create a commercial energy generating capacity, but simply capacity for their own use. He felt that we needed to amend the Wind Energy Systems Ordinance in order to include Special Purpose Districts along with Rural Agricultural and General Residence districts, by special exception, as locations within which Wind Energy systems could be installed. He indicated that he would contact CMRC to explain what we were trying to do. BMarshall asked if this proposal had been cleared by our attorney. GMorris indicated that it has not.
Proposals from the Public
Via e-mail, Janet Renaud proposed some changes to the Cell Tower Ordinance. She suggested that we include the following wireless standards in the ordinance:
1. Wireless coverage standards:
a. strength of signal requirements for in-building and in-vehicle coverage
b. percentage of coverage standards for the whole town
She also suggested that a minimum distance from a residence be established: i.e. 1500 feet.
PRenaud stated that Mark Hutchins, the PB consultant had not addressed either in-building or in-vehicle coverage in his report and that perhaps we should specify in our ordinance to assure that these are considered. He also suggested that the ordinance should establish a coverage standard for the Town, perhaps 80%.
JAdams suggested that the recent court ruling in the Sawmill Road case addressed these issues.
GMorris asked if we had the capacity to assess these standards. PRenaud suggested that this would be a requirement of the Ordinance and thus the applicant would have to demonstrate that they meet these standards.
KO'Connell said that we had to be careful that we don’t come up with arbitrary standards, a lesson we should have learned as a result of the Sawmill Road case.
GMorris moved to the proposal for 1500’ setback requirement. KO'Connell asked what the reason for the 1500 foot setback was…aesthetics? PRenaud responded that perception of health affects would have an effect on property values. This has already been an issue in recent court decisions. GMorris responded that as far as property values are concerned, despite the examples of property sales failing as a result of this proposal, there have also been several sales occurring with the knowledge that the Cell Tower proposal was pending.
BMarshall stated that he thought that 1500 foot setback was too far, almost a quarter of a mile, and thus too restrictive.
GMorris raised the other request proposed by Janet Renaud. She suggested that construction of Cell Towers in the Residential district be allowed by special exception. KO'Connell stated that he thought that this would be acceptable. BMarshall stated that he thought this would only create another hurdle for residents to address and would have little impact on giant corporations like ATT who have huge resources and who would clearly pursue this process, as demonstrated in the Sawmill Road case.
KO'Connell moved that we make construction of Cell Towers in the Residential District permissible by Special Exception only. There being no second, the motion failed.
GMorris proceeded to consider other language changes for the Town Meeting. He sought clarification for the language that existed in the Telecommunication Ordinance, Section V:E, 1,a. Why was this language included. It was stated that the language was included because pre-existing towers existed at CMRC and the PB wanted to account for those pre-existing structures.
GMorris raised a question about Definition 18 of the Telecommunication Ordinance. Were these services that we still intended to have regulated by this ordinance? The members agreed that these were
services to be regulated.
GMorris asked if there needed to be any changes to Telecommunication Ordinance Section D. The PB agreed there were none.
GMorris referenced Adult Oriented Businesses, Section VII: C, a. He wondered why that requirement for suitable screening had been included. BMarshall said that had been included to prevent visibility of potentially offensive material such as signage etc.
GMorris suggested that on page 45 of the Zoning Ordinance, paragraph 1, we needed to change Chapter 657 to read Chapter 675.
GMorris suggested that as per our conversation earlier in the evening regarding Special Purpose Districts, we needed to amend Section X Small Energy Systems Ordinance, Section C, 2 to permit small Wind Energy Systems in the Special Purpose Districts.
KO'Connell brought up the question of how to measure setbacks as proposed by Peter Hopkins. No action was taken.
Discussion the focused on the calendar to assure that we could get two public hearings in before the February 1, 2011 deadline. GMorris stated that January 7, 2011 was the last day to post the January 18th meeting for Public hearing and the January 18th meeting was the last date to hold a public hearing so that we could post a second public hearing should we need it to make significant changes.
10:05 Adjournment
JAdams moved to adjourn. KO'Connell seconded, all in favor, the motion passed.
| 
