Greenfield Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes –
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
February 14, 2011
Members present: GMorris, MSteere, JAdams, BMarshall (sitting in for MBorden), JFletcher, KO’Connell. Meeting opened at 7:05 pm
Mail Rec’d:
1. Received SRossi’s January 2011 Invoice
2. Ledger-Transcript Invoice for Public Hearing for Warrant Articles, January 2011
3. Boston 2011 National Planning Conference
4. Recording of Planning Board Meeting Dated 1/24/11
5. Letter from PSNH Requesting Public Hearing for Scenic Road Trimming of Trees
6. SWRPC Commission Highlights Dated January 2011
7. Greenfield Building Permits Dated January, 2011
8. Selectmen’s Meeting Minutes, January 20, and 27, 2011
9. Memo from Selectmen’s Office dated 1/27/2011 re: Mileage Rate Increase for 2011
7:08 MSteere began reading the January 24, 2011 meeting minutes. The following changes were made:
Line 30: placed quotation marks around the word changed
Line 91: added percent sign to 19, to read as “…with a slope greater than 19% will not be...”
Line 92: added period to end of sentence
Line 112: inserted the word ‘to’, to read as “…the Board needs to consider…”
Line 114: inserted the word ‘be,” to read as “…electronics may need to be replaced,”
Line 143: added the word ‘this,’ to read as “…see our frustration with this application.”
Line 168: changed ‘satisfy’ to ‘satisfies’
Line 180: changed ‘State of NH’ to ‘State Historic Preservation Office’
JFletcher motioned to accept the minutes as amended. MSteere seconded. Motion carried.
7:30 pm Zephyr Lake Road Cell Tower Deliberations:
PRenaud asked permission to record the meeting. No objections.
GMorris stated that he contacted the Peterborough Town Planner asking for recommendations for RF engineers and hydrologist in an attempt to get an independent party to review the coverage models that have been presented to the Board.
He called a hydrologist who specializes in telecommunication site planning, but they did the initial work for ATT. A second hydrologist has been selected. He also tried to get a list of RF engineers with no involvement with this application and got two names: IPagacizk who the abutters hired and the other was the company that did the initial report for ATT. He then talked with MHutchins. He felt that it will be hard to find RF engineer who doesn’t have some involvement with the applicant because this is a small world for this business. He suggested that the Board request the applicant to perform a drive test. A drive test is where the applicant will drive around and measure the real signal strength with the current reception in the area. . MSteere asked if we can define the areas we
want covered. GMorris said, “With the drive test we will have accurate information showing where the reception actually is.” MHutchins will interpret the report. MSteere, commented, “Just to relieve any conflict or controversy,” he asked JSpringer, “Is there any way that MHutchins could be part of the drive test process?” JSpringer responded, “It is my understanding when you do a drive test all that means is that you are sitting in the car driving around. The report will be forwarded to Mr. Hutchins”
BMarshall asked, “Is the drive test going to give us the information we want?” GMorris responded that it will show the reception in a car as measured and not in a building. BMarshall commented, “So we will be getting half of the information which may show limited strength for cars and none for houses.” GMorris asked, “What is our obligation to the town, is it adequate coverage on the roadways or do we have to include houses?”
GMorris said, “Under the FCC guidelines, are we responsible to insure adequate coverage in a car for the Town?” GMorris, “I want to make sure what we get done, is enough information to meet the FCC regulations.
JAdams said, “My understanding was that the carrier shows a hollow spot, and that is all we need to proceed with the request.” MHutchins references in his report on page 5 which talks about allowance of in-car coverage to be your basis for a decision. He also stated on page 6, that the ATT maps utilize the strongest dbm shading to offer the most likely coverage (green areas).
KO'Connell asked that the data along the roads, real data, be in the same format as the maps already given to us. JSpringer commented that the data will be done in a linear format.
BMarshall asked, “Before we incur an expense, we don’t have the evidence we need to resolve the conflict that we have with all these maps and what we were hoping is that we could come up with independent analysis to enable us to determine if they actually need Gould Hill site.
GM said that MHutchins cannot take the models that have been presented to us and definitively say this is right and this is wrong. He suggested the best way to accomplish this is the drive test. JFletcher said let them do the drive test and show us the actual strength of the signal. JFletcher asked BMarshall, “Would you feel that this is trustworthy?” BMarshall said “Yes, that would tell me that this road has the coverage, but by court decision we are to know what coverage is in a house.”
JAdams asked, “Can we ask the applicant that they are certain that there are gaps?” GMorris said, “Our charge would be to find out what gaps they are trying to fill?” KO'Connell, said, “We have enough maps and models, I suspect that some of the models will show the coverage and some of the gaps.”
GMorris asked, “Where are the gaps? And how will Gould Hill affect those gaps? Do they run the drive test without Gould Hill, or do they put up a temporary signal up there and run the drive test shows the coverage?”
MSteere commented, “We should get the latest maps from ATT and EAnderson maps, do the drive test and we should be able to tell coverage and gaps.”
JSpringer commented, “I have an issue with the cost for MHutchins, as we have spent a lot of money on this. Is EAnderson going to share the cost?”
SChoicine comments, “I believe in Francestown put up a temporary signal for the drive test.”
GMorris, “We have to verify that there are gaps in the area that ATT is trying to cover with this tower. Once we have that information we can determine gaps and if the Zephyr Lake Road tower is going fill in that area. The only way to know what is real is to have the drive test done. Does that give the board adequate info to render a decision?
MSteere motioned that the areas to be covered for the drive test are: to Zephyr Lake Road on Route 31/Russell Station Rd/New Boston Rd to center of Greenfield, Gulf Rd/Route 136in Peterborough to Greenfield Center, In Francestown, Farrington Rd/Route 136, to Greenfield Center, County Rd/Forest Rd intersection to Route 136, and from DPW Drive/Sawmill Rd to center of town for the drive test. JFletcher seconded the motion. After discussion, Vote called, ayes - BMarshall, KO'Connell, MSteere; nays JFletcher and JAdams.
KO'Connell asked if conditions could added to the motion. He suggested a replicating signal from the top of the future Sawmill Road location. GMorris thinks that it is onerous. They never said that Sawmill was going to do more than get to the center of town.
KO'Connell motioned that a signal generator/replicator be put on at 515 Sawmill site at the appropriate height as approved. MSteere seconded the motion. BMarshall and JAdams feel that this is cost prohibitive to applicant. Vote called: ayes - MSteere, JFletcher, KO'Connell; nays – JAdams, BMarshall
JSpringer requested the board address the slope issue. He addressed the revised plans on a larger equipment shelter as shown on Z3, the size being an 11.5’ x 30’ shelter with the generator inside. On Z2, regarding the distance edge of clearing from the surrounding properties, they are tightening up the grading and hammerhead. They now meet the 150’ vegetative buffer as required by town ordinances. The generator holds 189 gals and can be filled by a tank in the back of a 4-wheel drive pickup truck. They agree to this. An example of a foundation for a 90’ monopole, which comes from a different site, shows it is about 6’ down from grade, inverted T-shape, with normal concrete with rebar which will not have any effect on ground water. GMorris asked if there were any issues
from the Board with the building and pad. JSpringer commented that on page Z11 showing the specifics to the building.
JAdams motioned that a hydrology report isn’t needed based on the information received about the foundation as based on the proposed foundation design. If there is a 3 foot increase in the depth of the foundation, the applicant will come before the board to discuss the need for a hydrologist report. MSteere seconded the motion for discussion. After discussion the Vote called. Unanimous.
MSteere asked, “It is the intent of ATT to do this if possible, but what would change this?” AJ DeSantis said, “Soil conditions at the site would change the pad’s depth. On Page Z6 which shows the proposed finished grades along with current grades. So it will be 13’ down (concrete pad) according to Z6.”
JFletcher read the applicant’s area of coverage from their application--- Route 136 & Route 31, and residential in around town, including recreational, and hiking areas. He also asked that the models of EAnderson, and ATT be laid out so that Board could check and see what gaps are showing. He is questioning why the drive test needs to be done when he feels the models/maps do show the gaps already.
KO'Connell asked that an exact set of directions for the drive test to be given to the applicant which shows the gaps to confirm the 1/17/11 map.
MSteere, “We have been told by other people that there aren’t gaps and ATT is saying there are gaps, so the drive test will either confirm or deny the other peoples gaps along Route 31 and Route 136.
KO'Connell said, “People on Gould Hill now have coverage since the CM tower was turned on and that their ATT phones now work. The drive test would confirm this or not.”
GMorris asks, “Why can’t you say that there is coverage on this road or not on this road?” JFletcher said to have the drive test be accurate, we would have to have a signal on the Sawmill site in order to confirm the 1/1711 map. MSteere said, “Do the drive test and it will confirm the gaps and some other issues as well.”
KO'Connell and MSteere both feel that a drive test should be done. JFletcher and JAdams feel that we have adequate information and that they could vote on the drive test issue. KO'Connell is curious as to whether the signal propagation is going to be on at Sawmill, which will be included in the drive test.
BMarshall asked, “You are claiming the Zephyr Lake tower is to assure coverage in the town center area.” PMarchand responded that the CM tower is a boomer and it gives out a lot of signal. When other towers are in place, the CM tower signal will be lowered, so that the load (signal) is shared with the other towers. So when it is throttled back, the Gould Hill tower will be adequate to pick up this signal.
Driveway: JAdams questioned, “Is there is a back road to the top of Crotched Mountain site, and do you know what the grade is?” JSpringer replied, “Yes, but, unfortunately I don’t remember the slope’s grade. KO'Connell has an issue with the slope, is it possible to have the generator at the bottom of the hill in a building with power in an underground conduit going to the site?” Also I have a concern about the fueling of the site. As well as with what type of heavy equipment is needed to maintain the site.” MSteere said, “My concern is whether or not to waive the 19% slope.” BMarshall asked, “Is this a driveway or an access road? We need to decide which it is. I need to be convinced that this is not a driveway.”
JAdams commented that there are access roads are all over the place. GMorris read the driveway regulation. BMarshall commented, “This is off of a driveway.” GMorris said, “This is not a driveway per the definition.”
PMarchand, ATT rep commented, “As for not refueling for winter, wherever the load is for ATT, and the need for fuel is, fueling will be done by whatever means. KO'Connell asked the applicant, “Is it possible for the generator to be put at the bottom of the driveway?” AJ DeSantis, said “Yes, it is possible, technically, but not practical.” GMorris asked, “How are the meters read by PSNH?” AJ DeSantis replied, “Wireless by PSNH.” MSteere is concerned about the driveway slope, in reference to water erosion which will be a greater issue. BMarshall feels that a major erosion control plan would be needed here. An annual inspection will be needed. GMorris, “If we approve this driveway with these slopes, there would
have to be a detailed erosion control plan.” MSteere really questions the slope waiver because retention ponds are needed. BMarshall asked, “If you felt that we had an erosion control plan here that would meet the needs, could you waive the slope requirement?”
JSpringer asked that we table this issue, so that we can talk to the landlord about the slope, and go back to the drawing board and see what we can come up with. MSteere motioned to continue on March 14 at 7:30 pm.
10:14 pm MSteere motioned to adjourn. KO'Connell seconded. Unanimous.
| 
