Greenfield Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes –
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
January 10 2011
Members present: GMorris, MSteere, BMarshall (sitting in for MBorden), JFletcher, KO’Connell, JAdams
Applicant Representation: JSpringer, PMarchand
7:29 pm Mail
1. Greenfield Building Permits 2010,12/21/10
2. SWRPC Commission Highlights Dec 2010
3. Greenfield 4th Annual Variety Show, April 9, 2011
4. Preparing for a Successful Town Meeting Brochure from LGC
5. Letter from Ed Anderson re: 46 Zephyr Lake Rd cell tower installation placed on file
6. Current Town Officials & Committees 2010
7. Letter from SKnight, placed on file re: 46 Zephyr Lake Rd cell tower installation
7:02 Minutes:
JFletcher read the minutes from Dec 10 2010. The following changes were made:
Line 12: inserted quote mark “…to rather than a steep one would be better.”
Line 17: placed open and closed quote marks around the word start
Line 42: corrected form to from
Line 49: changed question mark at the end of the sentence to a period
Line 56: added at the end of the sentence, “and not governed under the noise ordinance.”
Line 161: added at the end of the sentence, “after discussion.”
Line 163: changed “the: to “then”
JFletcher motioned to accept the minutes as amended. KO’Connell seconded. MSteere abstained, motion carried with majority vote.
7:16 General Discussion:
After discussion on the new zoning amendments, GMorris asked if there was any new business to be brought before the Board. None was brought before the Board.
7:30 Zephyr Lake Road Cell Tower Application:
PRenaud asked permission to record the deliberations. JSpringer, attorney for the applicant, expressed no objections.
7:34pm GMorris asked, “How to begin” “A little bit at a time,” responded JAdams. GMorris suggested that the Board go through the narrative first to digest all that they are actually applying for.
7:38 pm JFletcher began reading the narrative, ending at 7:52 pm
BMarshall commented “that it seems to me that what we need to determine during the deliberation is whether or not the application complies with our ordinance. Secondly, take in consideration, the public concerns raised since July, and the many adjustments to the application made during the past few months. Now that we’ve read this, it made good sense to read the narrative to give the Board a clear understanding of the initial proposal and with everything that has been amended as a direct result of the public concerns. If we use our ordinance as a guide, as to whether or not we approve this, that thirdly, the Board will move to approve as presented, move to approve with conditions or move to deny it. To get a sense of the intent of application, the Board should go directly through the ordinance which is limited, use
the ordinance and the public concern as a ‘lens’ to view this application, we ought to be able to come to a decision."
MSteere has concerns about the actions of ATT and how they processed this in the beginning that were inappropriate and is something the Board should take in consideration in making their decision.
8:09pm GMorris began reading the ordinance starting with Section V: Telecommunication/Personal Wireless Services, starting on Page 21 of the Zoning Ordinance.
MSteere expressed concern about the coverage issue of the application as how some of the new towers are now up and some of the existing structures in Town could provide a better location for a cell tower. He reminded the Board of the applicant’s dialogue during the public hearing, where they felt there are no structures in Town which will provide the coverage they are seeking. He also noted that no paperwork was received from the applicant justifying this.
8:45 pm JAdams began reading Use Regulations.
BMarshall and GMorris asked that the applicant provide the following:
A written evaluation of existing structures that were considered for coverage such as CMRC, Fire Station Town Hall, a list of contacts of potential sites, and provide copies of letters to owners of potential sites, and letters of denial from potential sites.
JAdams commented that all the maps given to the Board, none showed that CMRC was ever considered a spot for coverage. GMorris stated, “We haven’t received any written evidence stating no existing structures are available.”
KO’Connell commented, “We’ve received 4 sets of RF maps and were any of them generated from CMRC?”
MSteere expressed concern about the coverage issue of the application as some of the new towers are up and some of the existing structures in Town could provide a better location for a cell tower. He reminded the Board of the applicant’s dialogue during the public hearing, where they felt there are no structures in Town which will provide the coverage they are seeking. He also noted that no paperwork was received from the applicant justifying this.
BMarshall motioned that we inform the applicant of that CMRC, and Greenfield Fire House, may be appropriate structures in the approximate vicinity to the center of Town for the proposed Gould Hill Rd site which may provide coverage. MSteere seconded the motion. Motion carried.
MSteere said, “We need to give them some range higher than the ordinance allows, 20’-40’, with a maximum height of 140’, as a variance could be allowed/granted if they need to go higher than 140’.“
KO’Connell believes the proposal meets the fall zone requirements. (dimensional requirements section).
GMorris said, “He feels that 150’ buffer easement spills onto abutters property, but if Board decreases buffer zone then no easement is needed.” The November 22 plat plan (Z-2) shows - 168’ to one edge and 160’ to other. The circle represents the fall zone. On the plat, the large square represents the least area and the smaller area represents where facilities are. JSpringer said the measurement is from the retaining wall which is 160’.
GMorris said on the tree survey (Z-8) that the measurement is 150’ for the landscaped buffer. It appears we have conflicting measurements and we need clarification on this data. GMorris asked JSpringer which plat has the correct measurements between Z-2 & Z-8. JSpringer said, “Z-2 is more accurate, and that the compound was re-designed to meet your requirements. He will have an engineer get actual measurements. KO’Connell asked for written clarification on the buffer measurements so if we need to waive, we know how much we will be waiving.”
JFletcher commented about the color requirement and if the applicant had come back with a solution. GMorris said, “They had come back with camouflaged for the monopole.”
Lighting - BMarshall commented that a 60 watt light will be on the outside and will be senor activated. He asked that they make sure the light is downcast.
Security barrier has been met.
Utilities – ATT will be running wires on existing poles and at the last pole the wires will go underground. MSteere asked if the additional cables would be bigger, what size? The response, the cables will be single phase and T1sized cable.
Historic buildings - not applicable.
Scenic Landscapes & Vistas: The balloon could be seen clearly from Slip Rd. BMarshall commented, “Just because you can see it from Slip Rd, it doesn’t impact any scenic road or vista. We made it a point that it wasn’t impacting or being seen from a vista.” JAdams commented that he feels comfortable with this regulation.
Driveways - BMarshall asked, “If using an existing driveway which complies with current regulations, but at the end of the existing driveway, a new driveway will be constructed.
1. Does the driveway regulation apply to a compliant, existing driveway? KO’Connell commented that the existing driveway meets the ordinance. All agreed. However, further discussion is needed for the extension.
2. Antenna Type: to be discussed later.
3. Performance and Design - GMorris commented that only one pole that can be installed.
9:42 pm JFletcher began reading Hazardous Waste.
GMorris commented, “This has been addressed. It will have a concrete pad with a berm containment for spillage and a double walled tank.
1. BMarshall feels that a new updated, engineered drawing of the concrete pad with a berm containment for spillage and showing the double tank is needed.
Noise – GMorris stated that we an 11/23/10 report showing evidence that needs to be evaluated thoroughly.
Radio Frequency – GMorris stated we have several RF reports. One from the applicant and one from an independent engineer. Equipment is specified in the report.
1. However, we need compliance report showing the FCC radiation standards/regulations on equipment.
Monitoring and Maintenance:
1. A bond is required for facility removal. The bond is to be reviewed every 5 years for updating those costs. This is required only if approved.
Deliberations will continue on 1/17/10 after the Public Hearing for proposed Zoning changes.
10:12pm MSteere motioned to close meeting, KO’Connell seconded. Motion carried.
| 
