Planning Board
Meeting Minutes – September 13, 2010
Minutes recorded by Sharon Rossi
Members present: GMorris, MBorden, BMarshall, JFletcher, KO’Connell JAdams
7:06 meeting called to order. BMarshall is sitting in for MSteere
GMorris commented that there are two items on agenda tonight. At 7:30, the site plan review for cell tower, and at 9 pm, the Chandler subdivision. GMorris also commented that MHutchings, PB consultant, will be here on 9/27 to answer questions about radio frequency.
7:08 Minutes
JFletcher began reading the minutes of 8/23/2010 meeting. The following changes were made:
Line 65: inserted, “Also audible from SChicoine’s house and at 65 Gould Hill as well.”
Line 138: inserted, “in the covenant” to read as,” …there is no prohibition in the covenant against subdivision.”
Line 151: inserted, “have created” to read as, “Might that have created his triangle?”
Line 171: inserted the word Planning Board; to read as, “The Planning Board received….”
Line 195: inserted phrase, “that includes the driveway” to read as “…to give Bosse frontage that includes the driveway.”
JFletcher moved to accept the minutes as amended. KO’Connell seconded the motion. All in favor, the motion passed.
7:20 Mail:
· Received 4 pictures from Stephen Choicine - pictures for review for cell tower.
· Received a letter from Stephen Choicine to be read in record re: cell tower
· Received a letter from Carol Irwin, Chairman, Conservation Commission – cell tower
· Received a letter from John Rattigan, attorney for Susan Knight - cell tower
· Received a letter from Susan Knight, cell tower letter
· Received SWRPC highlights for August 2010
· Received Application for Site Plan Review from Sheila McDonough
· Received minutes from the Joint Loss Management Commission
· Received YTD Budget report for Planning Board
· Received a current list of building permits
· Received from the Dept of Environmental Services a shore land application for 35 Sunset Rd, Greenfield
· List of appointed/elected Board members expirations dates –JAdams 2011. MBorden 2013, JFletcher 2011, BMarshall, alternate no expire date, GMorris 2012, MSteere 2012 KO’Connell 2013
· Select meeting minutes for 8/19, 8/25 and 9/1, 2010
· Received a invoice for legal fees- Chandler sub, copy of quitclaim in Hillsboro County records, advertising fees
7:30 Cell Tower Height Simulation/Site Walk Debrief continued
PRenaud requested that he record the AT& T cell tower debrief. GMorris queried Planning Board if there were any objections. None received from the Board or applicant. JSpringer commented that he OK with the recording. GMorris told everyone that Mark Hutchings, Planning Board Consultant will be here on 9/27. JSpringer, attorney for the applicant informed the Board that he opened his own law firm and that several e-mails that GMorris had sent do him weren’t opened in time for him to get the information that MHutchings requested be sent to him. GMorris would like the report as well before MHutchings comes in. CDumas asked if MHutchings will be answering our questions and shouldn’t GMorris forward those questions to him so they would be answered when he is here.
GMorris asked JSpringer, “Do you have the summary of cell tower simulations ready for us?” JSpringer responded, “Listening to dialogue, it appears that Planning Boards comments reflect the same results as we determined.” JSpringer said, “That from the Harvest Market parking lot and on Slip Road, the balloon was floated at 110 ft and we are proposing 90’ and that it couldn’t be seen from either location. The State of NH Historical Society will have a site review on 9/30/2010 at SKnight’s property and if they require a balloon test, we will be doing it as again. Our observations pretty much coincide with the Planning Board’s and at the 90’ height it appears that the height of the cell tower will be erased.”
BMarshall questioned the photo of 46 Zephyr Lake Road showing the simulation of the cell tower and queried is the photo to scale? JStephens, Infinigy Engineering, says that the tower in photo represents that the array will be 10‘wide.
MBorden commented, “Would like a few minutes to review report before asking questions.” BMarshall, asked, “Do we have in our record, for this continuation, the representatives in attendance for the applicant?” JSpringer named PMarchant, AT&T rep, RHowes, and DHaskell, Florida Tower reps as present.
MBorden said, “Judging from the picture that we have that SChoicine took over the house, that it appears to be proportionally correct.”
MBorden asked, “Why is photo #1of Haverhill, MA, in the packet?” JSpringer said it was an error. JSpringer also handed out a report from Infinigy Engineering on soil types and he stated that he couldn’t explain the types as he isn’t a soil expert.
GMorris read letters into record:
Carol Irwin, Chairman, Conservation Commission letter dated 9/12/10 was read first.
Ø First issue, the driveway appears to be within the wetlands buffer.
Ø Second issue is related to the road and the steep slope up to the landing at the proposed site. (Letter is on file.)
SChicoine’s letter dated 9 /13/10 read into record.
Negative effects - height of array will be level with bedroom
Ø Co-location – at this site is not going to be great
Ø Noise – study should be based on noise produced by 3 carriers as co-location allows 2 additional carriers
Ø Camouflage – no landscape plan showing the location and type of screening materials that will be used
Ø Landscape Easement - Zoning ordinance requires “150’ vegetative buffer, no trees to be removed, topped
Ø Fall Zone – Zoning ordinance requires applicant have a fall zone easement. Applicant states that ‘there are no existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions which impact this property or project, and none are proposed.”
Ø Underground utilities – the applicant has not requested a variance from the requirement to place al utilities underground.
Ø Fire Prevention – applicant states, “As for fire prevention, all the structures will be virtually fireproof.” However videos of a cell tower fire on 1/23/09 shows that firefighting equipment is clearly necessary.
Ø Snow removal and storage plans – applicant states, “…does not propose to remove/and or store snow during the winter months.” This is unacceptable, as emergency vehicles would not have year round access to deal with fires, fuel spills, etc.
Ø Antenna types – Board needs to have scaled drawings of the antennas that would be installed
Ø Driveway regulations – it appears that the slopes shown on 7/21/10 site plan exceed that allowed by the driveway regulation
Ø Waiver of Soil Survey – it appears considerable excavation would be done and granting of the waiver if clearly not justified
Ø Wetlands/Gradings – it appears there is some question about whether or not the proposed construction would necessitate obtaining a permit from the NH Wetlands Board or a Special Exception form the ZBA
Ø Groundwater Pollution - appears to be a potential of groundwater pollution from the handling and storage of fuel for the generator
Ø Independent Consultants – it appears that the person, whose seal appears on all the submitted site plan engineering and survey documents, is the Executive Vice President of the parent company of the applicant.
Ø Coverage Gap – to review the RF study submitted by AT&T playing close attention to phrases which suggest that approval of this tower would only be a starting point and that there would be significant request for future towers. (Letter is on file.)
JRattigan letter dated 9/13/2010 was read into record. (Letter is on file.)
SKnight letter dated 9/13/10 into record.
Ø Visibility – there will be a clear negative visual impact on my historic property and the neighboring properties of Slip Road, as well as from properties in the Gould Hill area.
Ø Noise – at the very least, the noise impact of this project has been incompletely explored and should be redone to simulate conditions that reflect the effect of the retaining wall and the noise that will be present when all 3 positions on the pole are in use.
Ø Groundwater concerns – I request that the Planning Board require complete building plans from the applicant to examine the extent and depth of the excavation required for construction of a 90’ monopole, and then hire an independent water consultant to study the potential impact on the underground aquifers in the area and possible effects on the quality of residential drinking water.
Ø Vegetative Barrier – the site is unsuitable…..requiring a landscape easement on my land, to which I am opposed.
Ø Historic Property – I request that the Planning Board refrain from making a decision until the impact the proposed tower will have on a historic property has been thoroughly investigated and findings are brought to the Board. (Letter is on file.)
GMorris stated to the audience, “We will use all this information as part of our deliberations.” GMorris asked JSpringer if there was any further information to be submitted to the Board.
KAsbury, tenant of SKnight stated that she has a video showing the height of balloon in relation to the houses in Gould Hill area if any wished to see it.
JRenaud submitted a photo taken from the Andrus property showing balloon being clearly visible above their woodpile. EAnderson submitted a RF study that he compiled which includes 6 HVAC and not one HVAC as the applicant stated.
GMorris asked the audience to keep an eye on the Town website for the Planning Board agenda, in case, Mr. Hutchings can't attend on the 27th.
PRenaud submitted to Planning Board a report on various slope issues in relation to driveway regulations and excavations.
SChicoine had a list of questions to be clarified.
1. Correction that the balloon was visible from the Andrus property, but no others. Several Planning Board members viewed the balloon from my back property line. Record will be corrected.
2. It was stated by Mr. Breuer the HVAC unit will turn on when the temperature reaches 78 degrees. Is that when the temperature inside the equipment shed reaches 78 degrees?
Yes.
3. What type of batteries at site? Unknown
1. What is size of fuel tank on the proposed generator? Unknown
2. Who conducted the 2nd tree survey? Unknown, but we will get name of forester?
3. Is the tower location as shown on 7/21/10 documents and 5/11/10 the same? It is.
4. Is the proposed height of the tower 90? The height is listed as 87 feet on the 7/21/10site plan document. 90’
5. What datum was used in calculating the elevations show on each set of Site Plan documents? Unknown
6. Why is tower elevation shown as 1,028 (1st plans) 5/11/2010; and the second set of plans as 1,000 on 7/10/2010 - why the difference? Unknown.
7. What is the deadline date to approve/disapprove plan? GMorris stated 120 days.
8. Why were some trees marked with white flagging tape and others sprayed with orange paint? JStephens believes that orange paint ran out and the tape was used. JS doesn’t know why.
DCollins stated that the generators are diesel and the HVAC units are electrical, has anyone thought about the air quality and how it will be impact the surrounding areas?
AWoods asked the Board, “To please consider what type of batteries is used. The old style batteries are lead encased with acid and the new style are lithium. Lithium batteries when exposed to air will start a fire and many cell towers are converting to lithium batteries.”
GAustin is questioning all the consulting that has been done by shadow companies of the applicant. GMorris stated that the Board at the moment has no other outside consultants other than the RF person. The Board may engage others as they move forward.
JMoran stated that at the 7/26 meeting that several questions about snow removal, the slope approach were to be answered by the Greenfield Fire Chief. BMarshall stated that the Fire Chief was at site review on 8/14. The Fire Chief stated that he will need a 30’ hammerhead at the top of the driveway and that the fire department has equipment that they can use to get across snow. He felt public safety there was OK. He also feels that the 8/23 survey done by Klum questions the assumptions that were done should be provided to the Planning Board showing the minimal impact on abutting properties be submitted. JSpringer said that he would follow upon that.
DCollins questioned the 5 page tree list and noticed that heights looked a lot lower than the tower. GMorris stated the applicant had to inventory all the trees which were a 1,000 and had to average the height. 36’ ft was determined to be the average height, so they will have to go before the Board of Adjustment for a special exception.
SKnight asked, “Why was the balloon flown at 110’ rather than 90’?” JSpringer said that was an error. SKnight commented that she spoke with person doing test, and he said 110’ would take in account of wind. In fact, the tech flew a red balloon which in his estimation was at 90’. JFletcher commented that when we took down the balloon, the tech appeared surprised that it was at 110’. SKnight requested that she be considered a consulting party to historical society. She handed a letter to JSpringer advising of this request.
SChicoine said that the applicant used a laser which showed the balloon to be a 93’ and it was not at the actual location of the tower and it was down slope as well.
JSpringer handed a report on driveway regulations affecting Infinigy Eingeering’s proposal to GMorris.
EAnderson handed to GMorris a RF coverage study, noise study, and antenna panel orientation that he compiled. He stated that the submission of original plan showed a base elevation of 1028’, but the current plan shows 1000’ elevation which significantly impacts radio frequency of the tower.
DCollins asked, “Were there other sites considered beside Gould Hill?” JSpringer in checking the RF report quoted 2 other sites, one top of Gould Hill which the covenants prevented that location, and 106 Gould Hill, 1.3 miles away, but the location did not provide link to cell.
8:52 the public portion of cell tower debriefs closed and will be continued to September 27.
BMarshall asked if the building will be lit. JSpringer commented that a motioned activated 60 watt light bulb will be outside the door.
KO’Connell asked, “What are the power requirements for the generator?” JSpringer or JStephens said, “A single phase 200 amp.” KO’Connell said that the generator information showed 3 phases. Will there be a new generator plan?” JStephens, “Yes.”
8:55 pm Break
9:08 Chandler subdivision continued. A letter was received from Harold Chandler advising Planning Board that Attorney Richard Pennington will speak on his behalf.
GMorris stated that he has the answers to the questions from the Town Attorney. He read the question and the lawyer’s response.
BMarshall said, “We have to resolve whether or not KO’Connell should recuse himself from this deliberation. As the lawyers response said that a Planning Board member could ask for a non-binding vote on a members recusal, BMarshall moved to include KO’Connell and not ask for his recusal in his consideration of this application. JFletcher seconded the motion. GMorris queried the Board, all in favor. KO’Connell abstained.
JFletcher still feels uneasy with the lawyer’s response to question #3 concerning the quitclaim deed that Mr. Chandler obtained.
RPennington, Attorney for Mr. Chandler explained, “As far as quitclaim deed, which is very common such as in situations as gifts, or between husband and wife in divorce, this triangle appeared to be orphaned piece with a driveway coming out of it. The driveway becomes part of lot due to use over years.
BMarshall asked, “If the town accepts this quitclaim deed, are we subject to liability in future if someone initiates a claim against this piece of land? Mr. Pennington said that he will give the Planning Board a letter of indemnification. GMorris commented that he doesn’t believe that anyone can come back to us on this.
Mr. Pennington said that the quitclaim deed was done to reserve the right of access to the 2nd driveway and an easement was drawn up and given to Mr. Bosse from Mr. Chandler. KO’Connell had a major concern about Mr. Bosse driveway, and due to his non-appearance, I now have no objections and it appears he is happy with the easement from the Chandlers.
Mr. Pennington said that Mr. Bosse is represented by Will Sullivan and that the lawyers have talked a lot about this and a second easement is being drawn up and there is no objection from Mr. Bosse.
JAdams stated that he is uncomfortable with questioning what type of deed someone has on their property?
BMarshall moved to approve the Chandler sub division, subject to voluntary merger of the property, and receipt of letter of indemnifying town of Greenfield from any future claims against the orphaned lot. JAdams seconded the motion to approve application conditionally with a voluntary merger of the property to come before the board. The Planning Board voluntary merger is a form that comes before the Planning Board for signature. JAdams seconded the motion. GMorris called for a vote. JFletcher voted No, JAdams, MBorden, BMarshall voted Yes, KO’Connell abstained.
GM requested payment of $1,134.00 from DMcKenney. DMcKenney spoke with Mrs. Chandler and a check will be forthcoming.
9:44 recess
9:49 pm resumed meeting. BMarshall has the updated groundwater protection (draft) for the Planning Board and he has had a conversation with LMurphy. She in contact with DES and they feel it is best to have a broad overview with the State and the public, and then have LMurphy come and speak to our needs, specifically. Also there should be a time span between the two meetings. A way of notifying the Town would be with letters to the Spirit. The State meeting could be in October and then meet with LMurphy in November and a public meeting in December so that final language will be done in January in time for March town meeting.
GMorris said that he will be meeting with DShumway and MRedman about the Institutional District on October 8th.
GM read the conclusion of AT&T court case against the Zoning Board of Adjustment…. “shall promptly authorize construction of cell tower…”
10:00 pm Adjournment:
MBorden moved to adjourn. KO’Connell seconded the motion. All in favor the motion passed.
| 
