Greenfield Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes –
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
January 24, 2011
Members present: GMorris, MSteere, BMarshall (sitting in for MBorden), JFletcher, KO’Connell
Mail Rec’d:
1. Letter from SKnight dated 1/24/11 re: 46 Zephyr Lake Road Cell Tower Application, read into the record, placed in file
2. Letter from THunt dated 1/19/11 re: 46 Zephyr Lake Road Cell Tower Application, read into the record, placed in file
3. Letter from EAnderson dated 1/24/11 re: 46 Zephyr Lake Road Cell Tower Application, read into the record, placed in file
4. CD of recording of 1/17/11 meeting
5. NH Town & City magazine, Jan 2011issue
6. Selectmen’s Meeting Minutes dated1/6/11 and 1/13/11
7:08 Minutes: MSteere began reading the 1/17/11 meeting minutes. Following changes were made:
Line 21: removed the word "and"
Line 35: added the word "was" to the sentence, to read as, “A clipboard was sent around…”
Line 41: added closed quote marks at the end of the sentence
Line 42: added open and closed quote marks, to be read as, “be modified to allow small wind energy systems in the Special Purpose District.”
Line 53: changed to read, “If any substantive changes are done, the Board will hold a second public hearing.”
Line 65: removed the ‘d’ from the word changed
Line 73: added the word "so" to sentence, to read as, “…and will reword Sec 5 so it’s clear that…”
Line 82: spelled out GMorris’ name
Line 93: changed the word ‘is’ to are, to read as, “…of small hills which are blocking the signal.”
Line 112: removed "far down" and inserted “deep”, to read as, “Would like to know how deep the tower support is?”
Line 117: added closed quote marks, to read as, “… have been done”
7:21 pm MSteere motioned to accept the minutes as amended. KO’Connell seconded. Motion carried.
General Discussion: GMorris mentioned a request regarding 85 Schoolhouse Rd stating that the location cannot be subdivided. GMorris sent a reply.
7:21 pm Zephyr Lake Road Cell Tower Application: JSpringer stated that they are still working on engineering plans for the new equipment shelter to put the generator inside. It is essentially identical to what is on the plan. It will be either 12’ x 28’ or 12’ x 30’ rectangular shaped. GMorris asked, “That won’t change the size of the pad?” JSpringer responded, “No change is made on the size of the compound.” JSpringer then handed out a Maximum Permissible Exposure study from SAI Communications, 250 Cedar Hill St,
Marlborough, MA 01752 about the exposure to radio frequency waves under FCC standards. Conclusion: AT&T proposed antenna installation is calculated to be 12.17% of the FCC standard for Uncontrolled General Public Maximum Permissible Exposure. MSteere stated that on the last page of the report, “a comprehensive field survey was not performed prior to the generation of this report.” MSteere suggested that a field study be done once the tower is operational.
GMorris asked, “Where do we begin?” MSteere responded that we had left our discussion about the driveway on the table. GMorris stated that the driveway needs to be covered and the letters need to be discussed.
BMarshall said, “Let’s discuss the driveway. That’s a big issue.” GMorris pulled out the driveway regulation. BMarshall has 3 or 4 concerns about the driveway. They are the slope and emergency access, erosion, impact of erosion on the wetlands below and clearly this does not comply with slope regulation. GMorris stated the regulation has a “passing lane” mentioned in the regulation and this driveway has no means for vehicles to pass one another
GMorris stated that the driveway regulation states slopes greater than 19% will not be permitted, normally not to exceed 12%. BMarshall asked if any newer copies of the applicant's driveway revision have been given to the Planning Board. AJ DeSantis responded that Revision #4 of the 11/22/10 report was the last one handed to the Board.
AJ DeSantis, Infinigy Engineering, showed larger copy of Revision #4 of the driveway to the Board. He was asked what the slopes of the driveway are. He responded 12%, 19%, 20%, and various slopes due to the construction of the driveway. MSteere noted that the driveway on the plot comes within 10’ of the property line.
GMorris, asked, “If the whole compound would be concrete?” JSpringer responded that the compound will be crushed gravel and the pad will be concrete only.
MSteere asked, “What is the total length of the new section of driveway? AJ DeSantis responded 480’ long. GMorris queried, “How do we classify this, a new driveway, a common driveway, a road?”
BMarshall, asked “Did we receive any requests for waivers on the driveway?” JSpringer responded, “Yes.” BMarshall read the section of the Greenfield zoning regulation concerning waivers. BMarshall read the request for the waiver, “That the waiver would have no impact on safety & access issues, and by granting waivers there will be less impact on the land.” BMarshall read a report from PRenaud addressing driveway regulations. He also read a report from JStevens, Infinigy Engineering concerning the construction of the driveway. GMorris stated our regulations clearly state, “that driveway with a slope greater than 19 will not be permitted “
JFletcher asked, “Do we say at the beginning of regulation what our intent is for this regulation?” GMorris read the “Authority and Purpose of the Driveway regulations to the Board. JFletcher said, “We should focus on regulations #3 & #4.”
KO’Connell has concerns with the slope, especially with the delivery of fuel for the generators. He asked, “What would happen if the generator was at the bottom of the hill and the power was run up to the tower?” GMorris commented, “I, too, have a concern with trucks going up that hill as well.”
GMorris, asked, “As far as the driveway is concerned, is the 19% rule something that the Board could waive and before we can do that, is there any other place in town where we will find a driveway with 19% slope?” GMorris said that he would talk to the DPW supervisor and ask if there is a driveway/road with a 19% slope that the Board could view to get a sense of how steep the driveway would be.
KO’Connell and BMarshall both have concerns about the maintenance of the drainage system and erosion controls with the 19% driveway slope.
JFletcher feels that the Board needs consider the safety of the public as to what and who travels up and down the driveway. KO’Connell asked, “What is the required maintenance on the tower and equipment?” KBreuer responded, “The electronics may need to replaced, testing is done for FCC regulations, and preventative maintenance done on the electronics/equipment.”
MSteere said a list of issues as well as an example of the 19% slope is needed. GMorris listed the following:
· Driveway- Is the Board willing to waive the 19% limit and to what degree?
· Turnout waiver- Are we willing to waive that within 50’?
· Erosion concerns, wetlands concerns, and aquifers
· Maintenance plan for the driveway and implemented erosion controls
GMorris asked, “If it would make sense to call an oil company and see how steep a slope their delivery vehicles can go up?” MSteere asked if the applicant would entertain a restriction on the size of a delivery vehicle? JSpringer said, “Yes, they would entertain a restriction on size of vehicle.”
BMarshall wants to discuss the hydrology issue. He feels that, “This Board doesn’t have the knowledge to make a decision about the hydrology of this application. I feel that we need expert information.”
GMorris made notes for 2 studies for water/wetlands, and RF studies. He states that there are serious conflicts with RF maps. We need these two studies done for these issues.
MSteere suggested an independent RF engineer, hydrologist, whatever expert we need to look at the materials submitted by the applicant, such as the report of 1/17/11 with all sites turned on including the Zephyr Lake Road tower, EAnderson’s 1/24/11 letter and with backgrounds on all who have submitted reports, study them and then give us his report. KO’Connell asked that the independent consultant come before the board and give us a better understanding of the information that we have received and so that he can see our frustration with application.
BMarshall asked “Can we come to an agreement with ATT that we are going to find a 3rd party independent consultant who will report to us and that we will accept as valid upon which we can base our decision.” JSpringer asked, “Why can’t you go back to Mr. Hutchins? We didn’t challenge him.” MSteere said, “Now that the Crotched Mountain tower is in place, Mr. Hutchins, could actually do a survey, rather than a model, which will show the RF frequencies values.” BMarshall asked JSpringer if Mr. Hutchins was acceptable to you. JSpringer said, “Yes.”
Questions for the independent RF consultant:
1. Can he run a real coverage survey of area concerning reception in the area?
2. Can he run a model including the CMRC site?
3. Model everything except Gould Hill.
4. Clarify what is adequate coverage.
5. Confirm ability to co-locate.
Hydrologist Questions
1. What would the impact of this development be on local groundwater supply, streams, and aquifers?
2. Impact on wetlands.
3. Impact of construction and required erosion control measures and maintenance of erosion controls ongoing.
BMarshall asked “Can we take the noise ordinance off the table? With two separate studies that reveal this application is in compliance and satisfy our ordinance.” BMarshall motioned that with two separate reports on the noise issue, that this portion of the application is in compliance with our noise ordinance.” JFletcher seconded the motion. GMorris called for a vote. Motion carried.
BMarshall asked, “Can we discuss the visual impact?” MSteere said, “It doesn’t impact any scenic vistas as noted from the two balloon tests. Also the applicant has agreed to camouflage it.” BMarshall motioned that the proposed tower is in compliance with the visual aspects of our ordinance, (Sec 5.G.6 b.) MSteere seconded. GMorris called for a vote. Motion carried.
BMarshall commented about the historic properties issue. “We have a report back from the State of NH and it was reported that this has no negative impact on any historic properties.” BMarshall motioned that with no negative impact on historic properties, (referencing Sec 5.G.5) that the application is in compliance.” JFletcher seconded the motion. GMorris called for a vote. Motion carried.
BMarshall also listed other concerns that abutters and interested parties have:
1. Whether or not this tower is needed in this location
2. Several letters concerning the issues surrounding credibility of the applicant
3. Health concerns
4. Ability to co-locate
5. Decrease in property values.
9:48 pm MSteere motioned that we continue the deliberations to the next meeting, February 14, 2011. JFletcher seconded the motion. Motion carried.
9:49 pm MSteere motioned to adjourn. JFletcher seconded the motion. Motion carried.
| 
