Greenfield Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes –
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
April 25, 2011
Members present: GMorris, MSteere, MBorden, BMarshall, PRenaud, JFletcher, KO’Connell.
GMorris called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m
7:03 p.m. MSteere began reading the April 11, 2011 meeting minutes. There were no substantive changes to the meeting minutes. There was spelling and punctuation changes only.
.
At 7:20 p.m. MSteere motioned to accept the minutes as amended. KO’Connell seconded the motion. Vote carried in favor.
Mail Rec’d:
1. SWRPC memo on subject of: Consequences
2. Memo from Town of Greenfield Selectmen Admin Asst re: 2011 Needs
3. Greenfield Building Permits Year-to-Date 2011
4. Letter from Springer Law Office, PLLC re: 46 Zephyr Lake Rd, Cell Tower
5. LGC New Hampshire Town and City magazine
MSteere went over the CIP excel sheets. He explained “One sheet is spreadsheet that provides more detail. 2nd sheet contains the inflation factors. I will apply your information to these sheets and then return them to the Planning Board.” BMarshall asked, “Where are the worksheets?” MSteere advised that the sheets are in the packet. GMorris will have the packets sent to the Planning Board by e-mail.
7:30 p.m. GMorris opened the public hearing for the cell tower applicant from Florida Tower Partners, LLC. PRenaud recused himself from the deliberations and BMarshall will sit in for him. GMorris explained to the audience the procedure for the hearing and clarified to the public that this hearing is to specifically discuss the drive test results and the driveway plan. These are the only items to be discussed. GMorris also commented that he had a conversation with Town Counsel about previously discussed deliberative portions of this application. Town Counsel advised that Board can discuss anything that was deliberated on previously, but those votes made by the board can be revisited at the board's discretion, but the final vote is what counts.
GMorris read a letter from Jon Springer, Attorney in reference to Dumas’ letter concerning his tone at the previous meeting and the threat of intimidation. Mr. Springer’s letter was placed in the cell tower file. PRenaud asked to record the hearing.
GMorris asked KO’Connell and SRossi if this public hearing was properly notice. SRossi responded, “Yes, the notice was in the paper and certified notices were sent to abutters.” GMorris passed around a sign-up sheet for the audience.
GMorris asked JSpringer if he had anything to present. JSpringer said, “I’m sure everyone will be pleased to know that I will be speaking very little tonight because these two issues are for the engineers to discuss. I’ve asked AJDeSantis of Infinigy Engineering to address the driveway issue. I will rely on the engineers to explain the new information.”
AJDeSantis of Infinigy presented the revision of the access issues. “These plans that are of the access area a little bit on the lower part of the area. We created another reference on the drawings which shows the adjusted slope numbers. To keep things consistent, we matched segment 13 to the previous and current plans. Sheet #Z6 shows the curve closer to the property line. The shortest measurement is now 15-16’ closer to the property line. We took the direction from the Board and re-looked at the watershed, the storm water drainage and added additional culverts. Another change on the compound area is the grading plan which shows an added culvert at 960’ mark to slow down the drainage.”
GMorris asked if the Board has any questions on that information. KO’Connell asked, “How deep are the check dams?” AJDeSantis responded, “Approximately 3 to 1 slope for the swale, and approximately 2.5’ based on width.” MBorden asked, “What is the width of the driveway now?” AJDeSantis responded, “Because the drive was moved in a little bit, the actual drive got a little shorter. To keep things consistent, kept segment 13 to 12’.” MBorden asked, “Can you tell me what the percentage is above 17% of this driveway? AJDeSantis said,” I can’t answer that. But I can get that information to you. The overall elevation didn’t change from Z6 to Z7. There are 7 segments at the 12’, from
segment 14 and upward are still valid from the previous presentation.”
JSpringer said, “KBreuer, RF Engineer, will present results for the drive test.”
KBreuer commented, "We were asked to do a drive with the current network and with the Sawmill site in operation as well. SAI Communication went out, collected the data, merged the data and processed the data and forwarded the report to ATT. The results were sent to the Board and to MHutchins. Conclusions from MHutchins said that report is accurate and fair with no alternative site suggested.”
GMorris asked if the Board wanted to ask questions on this or open to the public for discussion. KBreuer said, “The color code is the same as what has been on the previous maps. There are few points on map that are black. Coverage still remains below the standard.” MSteere asked that we get input from the public. GMorris asked, “If the Board could keep the larger copy of the drive test map.” JSpringer replied, “Yes.” GMorris asked, “Does Board have any other questions for KBreuer?”
7:47 p.m. GMorris opened the hearing to the public for comments, questions or statements. GMitchell asked, “On slopes, what is the length of the driveway?” GMorris responded, “480’ total from where the new part starts. All segments are 20’ except for segment #1.” GMitchell commented, “So 60% of the driveway has more than a 17% grade. That’s a lot of slope. Our zoning regulations (road regulation) don’t allow anything greater than 19%. Our zoning regulations will consider 17 – 19% slopes. I know what I’ve gone through with the Town on different projects and I don’t see why we are considering this driveway and if this goes through with this slope, I will be really, really disappointed with the Board.”
EAnderson said, “I have a question regarding the drive test, specifically the signal levels. The levels that are in the drive test; are these levels as recorded or at reduced frequency. KBreurer said, “At optimum". EAnderson asked, “Has this data has been manipulated by SAI?” KBreuer said, “SAI has manipulated this data". EAnderson asked "Why was this manipulated?” KBreuer explained, “ATT hasn’t been able to sell to other carrier because the power isn’t available on the CMRC tower.”
EAnderson said, “I’m confused.” GMorris said, “It is my understanding that if the Crotched Mountain(CM) site is putting out ‘x’ amount of power and if Sawmill Road site comes on line and will be putting out ‘x’ amount of power, will the two will conflict with each other and will reduce the level of power?” KBreuer said, “Yes, the CM site will cause interference with the Sawmill site.”
EAnderson said, “The fact of the matter, there are a number of ways to add capacity to a cell site, passive combiner, or on-air combining”. Do you know about on-air combiners? Simply add more antennas for radios that you are going to add.” KBreurer said, “Yes, and no, we operate multiple technologies. So even with other techniques more interference happens, more dropped calls and on-air combiners use more amplification.
GAustin asked, “If this tower were to go in at Zephyr Lake Rd, and you turn down the CMRC site’s power, what other sites are going to be impacted by this interference, and where are these other towers?” KBreuer commented, “Turning down the power at the CMRC site, interference will still happen without distinguishing a specific site in Greenfield, or to other towers in the surrounding areas.”
AWood asked, “If you did not have any other towers in this area, but had the CMRC tower, and you ran it at everything you could get, what would your coverage be? How does that compare to not having the tower or pushing the CMRC tower back down to what you consider an appropriate level? If we are going to put a tower on Gould Hill, and turn down the power on the CM site, and then put in another tower, where will there the balance point be to get perfect coverage? Kevin Breuer said, “What happens at the CM site has absolutely nothing to do with the Zephyr Lake Road tower.”
GMorris asked “If the CM site is operating at a certain level and you are maintaining coverage at the optimum level, why is a second tower being put in? Is it that you are putting in a tower at Zephyr Lake Rd as part of the network you are trying to complete to get perfect coverage in the area, or are you trying to overcome imperfect towers?”
KBreuer said, “What we want is perfect coverage with the least amount of towers, but, unfortunately, finding that perfect balance between sites is difficult because of topography and ground coverage which cause interference. The CM site will be turned down because it will interfere with our customers, the second tower will lessen the interference.”
JMoran said, “I have a series of questions.
1. To re-establish the base of we are trying to accomplish here. To overcome what your company has established as lack of coverage.
2. From the significant gap standpoint, who determine this gap? GMorris responded,
“They don’t tell us, they don’t decide what the significant gap coverage is. This Board has to determine if there is a significant gap in coverage with the information that it has.”
3. To make a decision here that all other possible sites, technologies, approaches etc.
have been adequately reviewed, and those sites are the least intrusive and reviewed thoroughly. If there were alternative technologies, and we brought them to your attention, would that alter or shape your decision to build here?” JSpringer said “No, the FCC has said that Board can’t dictate to applicant what technologies to use.” GMorris said, “Again that is something that we would discuss with our attorney as part of our deliberations.”
JMoran explained that there are other technologies to service different populations in other communities such as in Bloomington, Illinois to handle this same type situation, such as Distributed Antenna System (DAS) As I understand DAS, through reading about it, basically it is a series of small towers, sending and receiving antennas, that are located on telephone poles, buildings as single units and by bringing all those multiplicities together to a central processing unit. The DAS overcomes, to my understanding, a majority of the issues that ATT has particularly with traffic on the road.
GMorris asked if the DAS was based on topology. KBreurer explained the Distributed Antenna System. ATT will feed into the DAS via a fiber-fed system using fiber optics with limited coverage into houses. DAS is great in urban areas. KBreuer said, “Cell tower are the 99% technology for the next 10 years”
RWimpory asked that JSpringer reiterate the FCC regulations. JSpringer stated that FCC regulates DAS, not this board. Courts have said that a land use Board cannot tell the applicant what technology to use. JSpringer said, “We’ve tried to make this as least intrusive. We’ve used a 90’monopole, moved the sight, put generators inside a building. A local land use Board retains their jurisdiction, but every town has to allow reasonable opportunity to present from an applicant.”
JMoran asked the Board, “Have you been adequately presented with enough information showing alternative uses and the least invasive method or not by the applicant.” GMorris responded that is part of the deliberative process of the Board
GMorris asked, “If there were any non-speakers who would like to comment?”
CIrwin, Conservation Chairman asked, “Did the applicant present the driveway?” GMorris responded, “Yes, the applicant has gone back to the driveway and has redesigned the first leg of the driveway. They have put in more swales, check dams, and catch basins". BMarshall asked CIrwin, if she was present during the March 28 meeting and that the map has not changed much. She is concerned about this driveway as it looks like it was going to be very steep going up. She has a concern with the run-off from the driveway. She asked how many culverts are being added.” GMorris responded, “Three culverts are being added along with swales.” CIrwin commented that the current culvert at the existing drive is directed towards the wetlands and feels that during weather events which produce a lot
of rain or snow that there will be more water going into the wetlands. The existing driveway which is level with the wetlands will flood out with the increased water run-off from the steep driveway into wetlands now and the homeowner is going to have to build up the driveway to the house.
AHayaski and JMatthias submitted a letter expressing their concerns. “This is a residential area and we are near the wetlands. They are concerned with groundwater contamination from the runoff from the driveway. We have a well and feel that additional water runoff will affect our well.” GMorris stated as a point of clarification, “We accept any letters, but we may not read them. They will be placed on file for any of the public to read.”
BLandry said, “I have a concern with the driveway especially the last culvert which is 24.” How much water are they expecting for a 24” pipe? It is pointed, towards the wetlands.” GMorris asked AJDeSantis, “What was the worst scenario in this area?” AJDeSantis commented, “We don’t have that information with us. A software program was used to create the culverts and swales. The previous culvert was 15” and now it’s a 24”. We are not generating any water, and wanted to keep the current scenario as best we could. We are adding a gravel surface to the driveway.”
EAnderson commented, “I have several questions or comments regarding depth and coverage issue.” He referenced MHutchins letter about the drive test results. After looking at Breuer’s report with Zephyr Lake Road coverage, there is no substantial gap in coverage which is the burden of proof on the applicant to identify and clearly this antenna is not needed.
Another question was asked, “How many customers does ATT expect to get including residents of Greenfield and is the tower actually enough to cover the expenses of putting it in?” GMorris commented, “I am not sure that question is applicable to our deliberations or this hearing. Our charge is to see if we can determine that they have demonstrated to us a significant gap in coverage in town and that they have exhausted all reasonable alternative sites. Also to make sure they meet zoning ordinances, town regulations, and FCC ruling.”
CIrwin asked, “How much soil is being disturbed?” AJDeSantis responded, “About 22,000 square feet.” CIrwin said, “I think that at 25,000 square feet, an alteration to terrain permit is required.”
JMoran said, “I abut the wet lands and in current spring conditions, we flood back in there and any additional water into those wetlands will cause flooding to several abutters. The Board has to take into consideration, such other means, and which are other providers being brought in. Tom’s question wasn’t entirely off base asking about conditions under which there would be adequate business competition and that the significant gap is not so large. There is a competition scenario to be considered.”
GMorris said, “We talked with our attorney and we cannot say that because we have adequate Verizon coverage, we cannot keep them out.”
GMitchell commented, “Originally the FCC when they did this whole thing and said that they had to provide service by different cell companies, it was done so that small towns like Greenfield weren’t left out. As things have gone on with greater demand, so it has been a vested interest for the cell people to get into the smaller areas with more than cell technology and the towers. This has been a progression over the years and that means it is probably going to change again. Going back to the driveway, the culverts are basically to slow the flow; the water is eventually going into the wetlands. The culverts are going to basically prevent washouts.
GMitchell said, “On due diligence, we asked at one meeting have they checked CMRC as there is a tower there all ready. No, they haven’t been covered. I have a question.” GMorris commented, “As far as CMRC, we did ask ATT to run models in town and do to the drive test. They show that coverage would be limited. We do have coverage maps simulating a tower at the fire station and at several places at CMRC. So we could see if there were alternative sites.” GMitchell asked, “I don’t understand what the interference would be?” KBreuer responded, “The Sawmill Road site has so many sectors and our network allows for three sectors. Those three sectors help the phone system, but one phone call could be taking up 3 channels on 3 different sites.
When a 4th phone comes on, it steals power from the 3 sectors and lowers the power level which causes interference.”
EAnderson commented, “About the interference issues, the first line of defense to combat base transceiver tower is to have a certain basket of frequencies that transmits and receives which ATT is licensed to use.”
AWood said, “Interference more heavily impacts data, rather than voice.” KBreurer stated that band width would be wider, interference would be greater. I understand that you don’t like this tower, but if it wasn’t needed, I wouldn’t be here.”
AWood said, “FCC said as technology got better, interference would go away, but KBreurer corrected my thoughts.”
GMitchell stated, “I want to go back to my original point which is the driveway. The slope of driveway is over the 17% that is allowed by our regulations which is of a great concern to me. If that was one segment, I wouldn’t be so concerned. Over 60% of the driveway is between 17 – 19% which is beyond what our regulations allow.”
EAnderson said, “I sat through a presentation on wetland protection and the gentlemen that gave that presentation that said we were lucky to have the aquifer that Greenfield has. This gentlemen stated that worse that would happen to have is petroleum products/chemicals getting into the wetlands. With a truck loaded with 100 gallons of fuel to fill these generators on the steep driveway, this is of great concern.”
SChicoine commented, “Let’s talk about the RF concerns which I have are about the same my March 12 letter. The drive test was done outside the applicant’s coverage area. In reading MHutchins report, he feels that there is only slight difference between the drive test and the coverage maps. There is a change in use in the driveway. I feel that the driveway is changing from a residential driveway to commercial use. Call it anything you want, this is a driveway and our driveway regulations pertain to it” SChicoine submitted a letter which paraphrase his concerns.
GMitchell said, “If SChicoine said about the 50’ apron on Zephyr Lake Rd and it is a change of use, would this have to be paved?” GMorris said, “We would talk to the DPW Superintendent.”
CDumas asked, “When you close this meeting, will you explain the process of how many meetings this might take?” GMorris said, “Probably at least 2 more meetings. I can't say for sure. A site plan review is slated for the next meeting, but the deliberations will be slated for consecutive meetings.”
EAnderson said, “I would like to submit report on vehicle and satellite propagation by Julius Golberg from John Hopkins University. “
GMorris said, “I will take it and we will digest as best we can.”
PRenaud said, “On the driveway, I had to redo some of my calculations on my report on the driveway. They have specified a waiver on the driveway, but the overall slope would be 20.9% on the slope and our regulation says 150’ consecutive at or over 17%.slope doesn’t permit that slope percentage. This is 70’ beyond our regulation allowance.
PRenaud then,”Read the definition of driveway from town regulations. It was my impression that the Board was trying to re-define the phrase ‘regular basis’ of our regulations. The Webster dictionary has 23 definitions for the word ‘regular’ with two pertaining to this situation. The applicant is on record saying that they are coming here once or twice a month that is regular use. There is no way to re-define this phrase.
The Board considered hiring hydrologists concerning the driveway runoff/slope issue, but would wait until after the foundation was designed and it was all based on the foundation. The foundation has changed 4 times. My main point is that the hydrologist to study erosion, runoff, and whether the erosion controls put in by the applicant and the possibility of petroleum getting into the wetlands would be disastrous. You think there is going to be lawsuits now wait until that happens.
I talked about this waiver last time. In the Waiver regulations in section 7, “the standards of these regulations maybe modified in specific circumstances…for the landowner. Now all the
standards are all included in section 51d, those are the only things that can be waived for modifications. The landowner is not here asking for the modification so for you to grant this to a non-landowner, you are amending these regulations without a public hearing." GMorris said, “We have not waived anything yet.”
PRenaud said about the co-location is part of the new information provided. GMorris asked the Board does not feel this information is part of the driveway or drive test which is what this public hearing is about. The Board said No, to the co-location.
SChicoine asked, “Did MHutchins review the CMRC plots that were submitted?” GMorris said, “The drive test data was submitted to MHutchins for his review. He did not review the maps submitted after 12/13/10.”
GAustin asked, “Did Mr. Hutchins get the information about the power down of the CM site?” KBreuer commented, “Yes he received the same data as the Board did.”
SKnight reiterated that the water runoff will be extremely damaging to the wetlands with slope of the driveway. Also the foundation drawing that I have is an example, and not the actual foundation. GMorris said, “We cannot discuss this.” SKnight said, “So the foundation plans would have to go before the Board before the foundation was installed.”
9:37 p.m. close the public hearing portion.
MSteere suggested that we go through each issue that we need to be reviewing and start going through them:
MSteere - Driveway is biggest concern.
GMorris - Wants to really look at the map, read the reports
MBorden - Driveway, noise, look into the waiver issue
JFletcher - Wants to talk about 150’ vegetative buffer, dense tree growth.
GMorris - Have the PB really read MHutchins report, everybody to do a little home work on
MHutchins original and newest drive report.
The Planning Board gathered at the map showing the newest drive test information and reached the conclusions that the model and past maps are pretty close in showing gaps. Data confirms that the model is accurate.
MSteere motioned to continue deliberations to next meeting to 5/9/11. 8:00 pm
JFletcher seconded motion. Vote carried in favor.
KO’Connell commented to the Board that the reading of the minutes should focus on substantative changes and not on spelling, punctuation, insertions etc.
Board members are to call GMorris if any member wants to go over or get any more reports that are on file.
JFletcher asked if we decided that we wanted more information such as hydrologist information, would we have to open up the public portion of the meeting. GMorris said, “We could ask for more information from what has been presented, but we can’t ask for new information without a public hearing.”
GMorris said that with town regulations we can waive, but a town ordinance has to go before the Board of Adjustment.
10:30 p.m. MSteere motioned to adjourn. MBorden seconded motioned. Vote carried in favor.
| 
