Greenfield Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes –
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
May 9, 2011
Members present: GMorris, MSteere, MBorden, BMarshall, JFletcher, PRenaud, KO’Connell
GMorris called the meeting to order at 7:02. MBorden asked for a date to schedule a Site Plan Review for Greenfield Historical Society. It was set for June 13, 2011 at 8:00 p.m.
7:04 MSteere began reading the April 25, 2011 meeting minutes with Fletcher reading a portion and GMorris finishing. There were no substantive changes to the meeting minutes. There was spelling, punctuation, and replacement of some words changes only.
At 7:42 p.m. MSteere motioned to accept the minutes as amended. JFletcher seconded the motion. Vote carried in favor.
7:47 p.m. Site Plan Review for Greenfield Corner Properties, LLC
GMorris passed around the sign-up sheet so the public my sign-in. GMorris explained the site plan review process to the audience. He also explained that the Planning Board has previously met with applicant twice and felt that there were some issues that need to be presented via the site plan review of process.
BGrunbeck, Greenfield Corner Properties, LLC began his presentation. He explained that along with DHall, they have been performing renovations at the Greenfield Corner Property on Slip Rd. He went on the explain that we are working with what we have there and are working to the best of our abilities to create a building that is in harmony with the town’s overall look. We realize the town’s Master Plan done in 2003 included our buildings, however, the site’s previous owners never actually had taken any action to meet that plan.
“We’ve met with the state and the state is very agreeable with what we’ve proposed here. I am waiting for Planning Board’s approval to add curbing. There has been one change in this area in that we will not be putting in an additional light post. The conduit will be put in, but no post. There are 3 night sky fixtures compliant with the town’s lights near the walkway and at the side of building. We are working to define the parking slots on the Slip Road side of our property. At this time there will be 7 slots and a handicap ramp will be put in to access the first floor. Parking in the back will be maximized. In the back of the building, the parking area is 75’ long allowing seven spots and a turnaround area. The parking slots are 10’
wide.” MBorden commented that the average parking slot in 9’ wide". BGrunbeck said, “I’ve met with the Town and have come to an agreement for a gravel path between the two lots and where the overflow parking is allotted.” MSteere asked if the slots in the back are 10’ wide. BGrunbeck was not sure, but would put in 10' wide slots. Handicap signs will be shown. The gravel path will go directly to parking spaces, but it is still to be determined as to when site work is done.
GMorris asked if the Board needed any further clarifications. MSteere commented, “Why not request a waiver for 9’ slots rather than the 10’ slots?” GMorris said looking in Site Plan Regulations under Section VII, General Standards and Requirement #7, the Board could waive the size of the parking slots.
MSteere asked, “What would be the circumstances where the extra pole light would be installed?” BGrunbeck said, “If there wasn’t enough light for the parking area.” He plans to match his lights to the ones the town has already installed on the streets.”
GMorris read a letter from PHopkins stating his approval of the renovations being done. He also said that he and LWhite are working with the property owner and see no problems with any building code issues.
7:55 pm GMorris then opened the Public Portion of the hearing.
GMitchell asked, “At the Selectmen’s meeting what was the discussion about the area where people are going to park in?” BGrunbeck said, “I’ve reached an agreement with the Selectmen to lease six spaces in the rear with signage for our tenants.” GMitchell said, “Leasing will give town protection against liability”
EAnderson asked BGrunbeck to confirm who the tenant is for the restaurant portion of the building. He had read or heard that “Malarkeys” was going to be the tenant. BGrunbeck commented, “I’ve had interest in restaurant, but nothing has been signed. Malarkeys is interested, but there is a process.” EAnderson questioned if the Planning Board has any input in that process. GMorris stated, “No.”
8:03pm GMorris closed the public portion.
GMorris went through application stating some sections were non-applicable such as the hours of operation. He requested a check in the amount of $120 from BGrunbeck. A check was received from Greenfield Corner Property LLC in the amount of $120. After review of the application, MSteere moved to accept application as complete. KO’Connell seconded the motion. Vote carried in favor at 8:11 p.m.
MSteere suggested the Planning Board waive the width for the parking spaces. He also asked that a coversheet with explanation of what is being changed from the 2001 Master Plan and that the Planning Board evaluate the need for the light on the Slip Road corner.
MBorden commented, “The gravel walkway that you are going to construct is going to be pretty steep and the 28 spot parking area is not very well defined. My concern is the lighting in back for tenants and visitors making their way to the back parking lot. Will the lights you install be sufficient?”
BGrunbeck responded. “To the steepness issue, the closest corner to our lot is steep and we will be looking at how to lessen the steep grade of the walkway. We are proposing a light at the furthest corner of our property. If not sufficient, I will work with the Selectmen on how to solve the lightning issue at the back of the property.”
GMorris said to PHopkins, “As the lightning is an issue, will this fall under your purview?” PHopkins stated, “My purview is building codes, but if you wish to direct me to verify the lightning. I will at your direction.”
BMarshall commented, “I am concerned about the runoff on the slope of the gravel walkway.” BGrunbeck stated, “We did not have a problem with runoff this past year. We will be using heavy gravel in the back lot. We know about the stream down back and will continually be monitoring the runoff. “
BMarshall asked, “Is there a landscape plan?” BGrunbeck responded, “There will be no shrubs brought to the front of the building only seasonal plantings by the patio and the 4’ wide granite steps coming down off the landing and the ramp. Nothing is going back into that location, as shrubs are what ruined the foundation.”
BMarshall asked, “If the Meetinghouse parking lot will be used for parking?” BGrunbeck said, “No.” BMarshall asked Police Chief and he doesn’t want parking there.
KO’Connell said, “Since the Town is leasing parking spaces, will there be clear delineation between the Town’s spaces and yours?” BGrunbeck said, “Yes, my seven spots will be clearly marked, but will work with the DPW to have Town’s spots clearly marked as well.”
MBorden asked. “How many seats is the restaurant allowed?” BGrunbeck said, “28 right now, but I am talking with the Selectmen about septic approval for 75. The bakery and gift shop were never put on the septic load.” MBorden asked, “What other facilities are you planning for the building?” BGrunbeck said, “A gift shop, a store front, small offices with a new internal hallway and a handicapped bathroom. I’ve asked the Selectmen to consider allowing the maximum load for the whole area. I will not allow more than 75 seats in restaurant along with retail and office space.” BMarshall asked, “What is the anticipated load for a 75 seat restaurant?” BGrunbeck said, “They have plenty of capacity with proposed changes, it will
bring the septic capacity to 50%.”
GMorris asked the Board, “Are all you concerns addressed?” BMarshall said, “I have a safety issue about the crosswalk from your building to the Meetinghouse. Is there lightning on that side of the building?” BGrunbeck responded, “There are two street lights on the Meetinghouse side.” BMarshall asked, “Can one of your lights be pointed so the cross walk is well light?” BGrunbeck said, “Yes, there is a floodlight and it can be moved to illuminate the crosswalk to cover Slip Road and Forest Road.”
KO’Connell said, “The walkway to the lot in the back is a concern and it is steep.” JFletcher said he would like to see a better plan on the gravel walkway. MBorden is concerned about 75 seat restaurant. BGrunbeck offered the Board a 3 month evaluation on landscape, gravel walkway, and lightning.
MSteere motioned to approve the application with following contingencies:
1. A cover sheet on the front of plans to include the name and address, lot number, date, an explanation of what data is inside the Construction of Community Wastewater System dated February 4, 2004 prepared by Underwood engineers, specifically page 2) on the Greenfield Corner Properties, LLC.
2. A landscape plan, a detail drawing of the walkway to parking areas, lightning placement, water runoff plan, and pedestrian safety around the stream with grading. (KO”Connell suggested that it be staked out.) A Site Walk is scheduled for 6:00 pm for June 13, 2011. After 90 days and up to 180 days, an evaluation of lightning and walkways for pedestrian safety of the property after work is complete will be done by the Planning Board.
MBorden seconded the motion. GMorris call for a vote. Vote was unanimous in favor.
BMarshall asked, “What are the merits of doing a waiver for the parking slots?” BGrunbeck said, “Granting waiver from 10’ to 9’ will get one more slot in front and back. So the slots would go from 7 to 8.”
MSteere motioned to grant a waiver from the parking space width dimensions of 10 feet to 9 feet. KO’Connell seconded the motion. MSteere said that the Board should put the curbing as a contingency. BGrunbeck requested a waiver for 9’ wide parking spaces referencing Section VII, General Standards and Requirements of the Site Plan Review Section VII f (1). GMorris called for a vote. Vote was unanimous in favor.
8:59 p.m. Mail Rec’d:
1. CD recording of April 25, 2011 meeting
2. Letter from Ed Anderson dated 5/5/2011 re: RF Drive Test for Proposed Cell Tower at 46 Lake Rd
3. Selectmen’s Meeting Minutes dated April 7, 2011
4. NH Dept of Environmental Services brochure
5. SWRPC Commission Highlights April 2011
6. SRossi’s invoice dated May 8, 2011
9:00 p.m. Continuation of Zephyr Lake Road Cell Tower Application deliberations:
PRenaud recused himself from deliberations and asked to record the meeting.
GMorris said that he wanted to go back and review the MHutchins report and the slopes of the driveway. My concern is that I can’t remember when we’ve ever waived this type of slope. What does the board want to discuss first. Those are my two concerns.
KO’Connell held up the MHutchins report dated Sept 23, 2010. GMorris commented we had them run the maps for downtown Greenfield with a antenna at the Fire station flagpole and on the water tower at CMRC. I want to make sure they have exhausted all alternative sites. When I read the original report, I had questions then about the alternative site on Fletcher Road, but where is it? JFletcher said the owner was STimmons. She actually came to Gould Hill site walk and at that time she hadn’t made up her mind about having her land used for a cell tower site. The land is located at the top of the hill on Fletcher Road. GMorris stated that he was under the impression her land was in current use or conservation easement. JFletcher said he didn’t know.
GMorris said in MHutchins report dated 9/23/10, “The Fletcher Road alternate site does poorly leaving part of Greenfield center without adequate coverage. I want to look at the fire dept and the water tower sites. My question is have we looked at any alternative structures in town that provides adequate coverage. Looking at those maps with the alternative sites, it appears good coverage for the center of Town, but from East Road south to Zephyr Lake Road shows a gap in coverage. The applicant already stated that from Zephyr Lake Road south on Route 31 will not be covered by this new tower. If alternative sites covered the center of town, would East Road to Zephyr Lake Road warrant a significant gap in coverage? MSteere said based on looking at the various maps, there are some gaps in coverage and Gould
Hill does cover some of the gaps that exist.
GMorris asked, “How do we measure a substantial gap in coverage? Is it one area or a substantial gap in several areas? Does from East Rd south to Zephyr Lake Road warrant a substantial gap in coverage? MHutchins report says from Zephyr Lake Road south is not covered. GMorris said, “Our job is to make the best decision we can. My question is, “Have they exhausted alternative sites to this tower?”
BMarshall asked, “Have we determined that a significant gap in coverage does exist? Has the board arrived at that conclusion? GMorris responded, “Not really.” BMarshall said, If we so determine that, the next question becomes, is what is the best way to fill that recognizing that another tower is going to be needed anyway? Can we reach a conclusion that with the models we have, the Hutchins report, and the drive test report, have they demonstrated a significant gap in coverage exists? Can we reach that conclusion?”
KO’Connell asked, “Is there a significant gap of service for ATT in the town of Greenfield? Yes.” JFletcher said, “There are different definitions for significant gaps. Are we talking about no in-house coverage, no vehicle coverage? KO’Connell said, “Our ordinance says they have to exhaust alternative sites.” MBorden commented, “You are not going to get 100% coverage in this neighborhood, especially with the ups and downs of the terrain.”
BMarshall asked, “Are we proceeding right now in this discussion based on the determination by this Board that a significant gap exists?” “Yes.” GMorris said, “We did a straw poll and do not need to vote on it as we are deliberating. When we met with the attorney he said that we could go back and reopen the items we’ve already voted on.” BMarshall continued, “So we agree that there is a significant gap in coverage in Greenfield that needs to be filled. So now we are having this conversation about what is the best way to fill it. ATT has brought this proposal as the best way to fill it. What we are discussing now is alternatives they have not brought forward, but which they have modeled for us at our request. So now you are asking us to determine
whether an alternative is there, recognizing that we are probably going to need another tower in town or south of town?”
GMorris said, “I don’t know that is not our determination. When I said I wanted to do some homework, I wanted to read these reports and look at those models because they have already stated from Zephyr Lake Road south that there will be no coverage with this proposal. So now I am looking at these things, where does that leave the gap? With these two alternative site, the only gap we need to worry about is from East Rd to Zephyr Lake Road. So is that the only gap we need to worry about? Does that warrant further review or rejection because all alternative sites haven’t been explored? If they use the fire station and the CMRC water tower, will those sites fill in the town except from East Rd to Zephyr Lake Road?”
MSteere said, “Based on looking at Gould Hill and those sites, there is less coverage from the fire station and water tower to East Rd. As network issue, I am guessing, the courts would look at it as if you don’t do that, at the extent that another tower would have to be put in, so what is the entire network going to look like?” GMorris said, “Before we do that, I still want to run this by the Town Attorney. We are going to look at the attorney for guidance.”
GMorris commented, “In the meeting minutes of April 25, 2011 we put together a list of needs (which GMorris read to the Board) and I am not convinced that we and the applicant have looked at all alternative sites. We requested that they look at alternative sites which should have been part of the original evidence to the Board.” MBorden read from District Regulations Section C, 3, the applicant shall have the burden of proving that there are no existing structures that are suitable to locate their telecommunications and personal wireless services and/or to transmit or receive radio signals. The applicant will provide written proof of all contact made with owners of potential sites regarding availability of potential space for telecommunications. GMorris asked if the applicant has achieved that.
We asked for letters to prospective owners of possible sites, which we have never received, even though requested twice. GMorris asked, “Have they met the requirements of the ordinance? I am trying to put us on a path where we’ve discussed that, everyone has their opinion and when we meet with the attorney, he can say that my opinion is right or not, or any other board member’s opinion is right or not, everyone’s opinion is noted. If you are comfortable with that, we will move onto another topic.
GMorris said, “Let’s discuss the waiver request for the driveway.”
MBorden said, “It is my opinion we should not to grant the waiver because we haven’t approved a driveway anywhere in town that steep. The driveway regulation Section 5.M.1 says no driveway greater than 19% will be permitted. We’ve determined that 50-60% of this driveway is greater than 17% with seven segments of the 13 segments are over 19%, beginning with the first segment at 32%. GMorris said, “If we were to reject this waiver, I feel that we should come up with a percent of the driveway that is over 17%.” MSteere asked, “What will we do with the waiver request?” GMorris asked if a member would make a motion or should we verify anything about the waiver with the attorney before we vote? MSteere wants to talk to the attorney first. Board agreed to
speak with the attorney first.
JFletcher commented about the vegetative buffer. “Do we have to subtract the cleared area that has been logged out from the 150’ vegetative buffer? This is a neighborhood, and this tree growth is dense.” GMorris asked, “Is the clearing is incidental to this application? Is there dense tree extending continuously 150’?”
BMarshall asked, “Are we going to reconsider the noise issue? The concern I have as far as I can see, is when I read the third noise report, the question that emerged is 2 emergency generators will be installed and not three as originally noted. BMarshall read a paragraph concerning noise levels from a November 23, 2010 letter from Noise Control Engineering, page 2. Why aren’t we considering three generators vs. two generators? Only two generators are mentioned here, but won't a third generator raise the noise level? BMarshall said, “The noise level rises with the number of generators per co-locator, so how many generators?” GMorris said, “It sounds like they have their two co-locators lined up, Verizon and Sprint. We’ve talked about a truck going up there twice
or three times a month depending upon the number of generators in use?”
MSteere said, “If the noise issue is a concern, we could put in a contingent in that a noise engineer could be hired to monitor the levels.”
BMarshall said, “It has been stated before that the landowner is not the one presenting this application, so are we giving him the right to due diligence?” MBorden asked, “Has he come to exercise his right and does he have this right to do this on his property?” GMorris asked, “Are we stepping on his feet if we deny this?” KO’Connell asked, “Are we denying him equitable use of his property?”
KO’Connell stated he felt that the wetlands issue and the driveway issue are interwoven and are not separate issues.
BMarshall stated, “There is a danger of a spill at the top of that driveway that will affect the aquifer, abutters, the landowner and a half a dozen of others in the area. If a spill were to happen, what will the culverts do?”
MBorden said, “The culverts will protect the road.” GMorris said, “Do the culverts direct a water back into its natural course to the wetlands or to a different location?”
GMorris asked, “Are you guys in a position to take our concerns to Matt? Then you can make your decisions based on his advice. I will call Matt tomorrow and set up an appointment for Monday, May 16th.
MSteere moved to continue deliberations to next meeting. BMarshall seconded. Vote carried in favor. Deliberations on Zephyr Lake Road cell tower to continue to May 23, 2011 at 7:30 p.m.
10:25 p.m. MSteere motioned to adjourn. KO’Connell seconded the motion. Vote carried in favor.
Greenfield Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes –
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
May 9, 2011
Members present: GMorris, MSteere, MBorden, BMarshall, JFletcher, PRenaud, KO’Connell
GMorris called the meeting to order at 7:02. MBorden asked for a date to schedule a Site Plan Review for Greenfield Historical Society. It was set for June 13, 2011 at 8:00 p.m.
7:04 MSteere began reading the April 25, 2011 meeting minutes with Fletcher reading a portion and GMorris finishing. There were no substantive changes to the meeting minutes. There was spelling, punctuation, and replacement of some words changes only.
At 7:42 p.m. MSteere motioned to accept the minutes as amended. JFletcher seconded the motion. Vote carried in favor.
7:47 p.m. Site Plan Review for Greenfield Corner Properties, LLC
GMorris passed around the sign-up sheet so the public my sign-in. GMorris explained the site plan review process to the audience. He also explained that the Planning Board has previously met with applicant twice and felt that there were some issues that need to be presented via the site plan review of process.
BGrunbeck, Greenfield Corner Properties, LLC began his presentation. He explained that along with DHall, they have been performing renovations at the Greenfield Corner Property on Slip Rd. He went on the explain that we are working with what we have there and are working to the best of our abilities to create a building that is in harmony with the town’s overall look. We realize the town’s Master Plan done in 2003 included our buildings, however, the site’s previous owners never actually had taken any action to meet that plan.
“We’ve met with the state and the state is very agreeable with what we’ve proposed here. I am waiting for Planning Board’s approval to add curbing. There has been one change in this area in that we will not be putting in an additional light post. The conduit will be put in, but no post. There are 3 night sky fixtures compliant with the town’s lights near the walkway and at the side of building. We are working to define the parking slots on the Slip Road side of our property. At this time there will be 7 slots and a handicap ramp will be put in to access the first floor. Parking in the back will be maximized. In the back of the building, the parking area is 75’ long allowing seven spots and a turnaround area. The parking slots are 10’
wide.” MBorden commented that the average parking slot in 9’ wide". BGrunbeck said, “I’ve met with the Town and have come to an agreement for a gravel path between the two lots and where the overflow parking is allotted.” MSteere asked if the slots in the back are 10’ wide. BGrunbeck was not sure, but would put in 10' wide slots. Handicap signs will be shown. The gravel path will go directly to parking spaces, but it is still to be determined as to when site work is done.
GMorris asked if the Board needed any further clarifications. MSteere commented, “Why not request a waiver for 9’ slots rather than the 10’ slots?” GMorris said looking in Site Plan Regulations under Section VII, General Standards and Requirement #7, the Board could waive the size of the parking slots.
MSteere asked, “What would be the circumstances where the extra pole light would be installed?” BGrunbeck said, “If there wasn’t enough light for the parking area.” He plans to match his lights to the ones the town has already installed on the streets.”
GMorris read a letter from PHopkins stating his approval of the renovations being done. He also said that he and LWhite are working with the property owner and see no problems with any building code issues.
7:55 pm GMorris then opened the Public Portion of the hearing.
GMitchell asked, “At the Selectmen’s meeting what was the discussion about the area where people are going to park in?” BGrunbeck said, “I’ve reached an agreement with the Selectmen to lease six spaces in the rear with signage for our tenants.” GMitchell said, “Leasing will give town protection against liability”
EAnderson asked BGrunbeck to confirm who the tenant is for the restaurant portion of the building. He had read or heard that “Malarkeys” was going to be the tenant. BGrunbeck commented, “I’ve had interest in restaurant, but nothing has been signed. Malarkeys is interested, but there is a process.” EAnderson questioned if the Planning Board has any input in that process. GMorris stated, “No.”
8:03pm GMorris closed the public portion.
GMorris went through application stating some sections were non-applicable such as the hours of operation. He requested a check in the amount of $120 from BGrunbeck. A check was received from Greenfield Corner Property LLC in the amount of $120. After review of the application, MSteere moved to accept application as complete. KO’Connell seconded the motion. Vote carried in favor at 8:11 p.m.
MSteere suggested the Planning Board waive the width for the parking spaces. He also asked that a coversheet with explanation of what is being changed from the 2001 Master Plan and that the Planning Board evaluate the need for the light on the Slip Road corner.
MBorden commented, “The gravel walkway that you are going to construct is going to be pretty steep and the 28 spot parking area is not very well defined. My concern is the lighting in back for tenants and visitors making their way to the back parking lot. Will the lights you install be sufficient?”
BGrunbeck responded. “To the steepness issue, the closest corner to our lot is steep and we will be looking at how to lessen the steep grade of the walkway. We are proposing a light at the furthest corner of our property. If not sufficient, I will work with the Selectmen on how to solve the lightning issue at the back of the property.”
GMorris said to PHopkins, “As the lightning is an issue, will this fall under your purview?” PHopkins stated, “My purview is building codes, but if you wish to direct me to verify the lightning. I will at your direction.”
BMarshall commented, “I am concerned about the runoff on the slope of the gravel walkway.” BGrunbeck stated, “We did not have a problem with runoff this past year. We will be using heavy gravel in the back lot. We know about the stream down back and will continually be monitoring the runoff. “
BMarshall asked, “Is there a landscape plan?” BGrunbeck responded, “There will be no shrubs brought to the front of the building only seasonal plantings by the patio and the 4’ wide granite steps coming down off the landing and the ramp. Nothing is going back into that location, as shrubs are what ruined the foundation.”
BMarshall asked, “If the Meetinghouse parking lot will be used for parking?” BGrunbeck said, “No.” BMarshall asked Police Chief and he doesn’t want parking there.
KO’Connell said, “Since the Town is leasing parking spaces, will there be clear delineation between the Town’s spaces and yours?” BGrunbeck said, “Yes, my seven spots will be clearly marked, but will work with the DPW to have Town’s spots clearly marked as well.”
MBorden asked. “How many seats is the restaurant allowed?” BGrunbeck said, “28 right now, but I am talking with the Selectmen about septic approval for 75. The bakery and gift shop were never put on the septic load.” MBorden asked, “What other facilities are you planning for the building?” BGrunbeck said, “A gift shop, a store front, small offices with a new internal hallway and a handicapped bathroom. I’ve asked the Selectmen to consider allowing the maximum load for the whole area. I will not allow more than 75 seats in restaurant along with retail and office space.” BMarshall asked, “What is the anticipated load for a 75 seat restaurant?” BGrunbeck said, “They have plenty of capacity with proposed changes, it will
bring the septic capacity to 50%.”
GMorris asked the Board, “Are all you concerns addressed?” BMarshall said, “I have a safety issue about the crosswalk from your building to the Meetinghouse. Is there lightning on that side of the building?” BGrunbeck responded, “There are two street lights on the Meetinghouse side.” BMarshall asked, “Can one of your lights be pointed so the cross walk is well light?” BGrunbeck said, “Yes, there is a floodlight and it can be moved to illuminate the crosswalk to cover Slip Road and Forest Road.”
KO’Connell said, “The walkway to the lot in the back is a concern and it is steep.” JFletcher said he would like to see a better plan on the gravel walkway. MBorden is concerned about 75 seat restaurant. BGrunbeck offered the Board a 3 month evaluation on landscape, gravel walkway, and lightning.
MSteere motioned to approve the application with following contingencies:
1. A cover sheet on the front of plans to include the name and address, lot number, date, an explanation of what data is inside the Construction of Community Wastewater System dated February 4, 2004 prepared by Underwood engineers, specifically page 2) on the Greenfield Corner Properties, LLC.
2. A landscape plan, a detail drawing of the walkway to parking areas, lightning placement, water runoff plan, and pedestrian safety around the stream with grading. (KO”Connell suggested that it be staked out.) A Site Walk is scheduled for 6:00 pm for June 13, 2011. After 90 days and up to 180 days, an evaluation of lightning and walkways for pedestrian safety of the property after work is complete will be done by the Planning Board.
MBorden seconded the motion. GMorris call for a vote. Vote was unanimous in favor.
BMarshall asked, “What are the merits of doing a waiver for the parking slots?” BGrunbeck said, “Granting waiver from 10’ to 9’ will get one more slot in front and back. So the slots would go from 7 to 8.”
MSteere motioned to grant a waiver from the parking space width dimensions of 10 feet to 9 feet. KO’Connell seconded the motion. MSteere said that the Board should put the curbing as a contingency. BGrunbeck requested a waiver for 9’ wide parking spaces referencing Section VII, General Standards and Requirements of the Site Plan Review Section VII f (1). GMorris called for a vote. Vote was unanimous in favor.
8:59 p.m. Mail Rec’d:
1. CD recording of April 25, 2011 meeting
2. Letter from Ed Anderson dated 5/5/2011 re: RF Drive Test for Proposed Cell Tower at 46 Lake Rd
3. Selectmen’s Meeting Minutes dated April 7, 2011
4. NH Dept of Environmental Services brochure
5. SWRPC Commission Highlights April 2011
6. SRossi’s invoice dated May 8, 2011
9:00 p.m. Continuation of Zephyr Lake Road Cell Tower Application deliberations:
PRenaud recused himself from deliberations and asked to record the meeting.
GMorris said that he wanted to go back and review the MHutchins report and the slopes of the driveway. My concern is that I can’t remember when we’ve ever waived this type of slope. What does the board want to discuss first. Those are my two concerns.
KO’Connell held up the MHutchins report dated Sept 23, 2010. GMorris commented we had them run the maps for downtown Greenfield with a antenna at the Fire station flagpole and on the water tower at CMRC. I want to make sure they have exhausted all alternative sites. When I read the original report, I had questions then about the alternative site on Fletcher Road, but where is it? JFletcher said the owner was STimmons. She actually came to Gould Hill site walk and at that time she hadn’t made up her mind about having her land used for a cell tower site. The land is located at the top of the hill on Fletcher Road. GMorris stated that he was under the impression her land was in current use or conservation easement. JFletcher said he didn’t know.
GMorris said in MHutchins report dated 9/23/10, “The Fletcher Road alternate site does poorly leaving part of Greenfield center without adequate coverage. I want to look at the fire dept and the water tower sites. My question is have we looked at any alternative structures in town that provides adequate coverage. Looking at those maps with the alternative sites, it appears good coverage for the center of Town, but from East Road south to Zephyr Lake Road shows a gap in coverage. The applicant already stated that from Zephyr Lake Road south on Route 31 will not be covered by this new tower. If alternative sites covered the center of town, would East Road to Zephyr Lake Road warrant a significant gap in coverage? MSteere said based on looking at the various maps, there are some gaps in coverage and Gould
Hill does cover some of the gaps that exist.
GMorris asked, “How do we measure a substantial gap in coverage? Is it one area or a substantial gap in several areas? Does from East Rd south to Zephyr Lake Road warrant a substantial gap in coverage? MHutchins report says from Zephyr Lake Road south is not covered. GMorris said, “Our job is to make the best decision we can. My question is, “Have they exhausted alternative sites to this tower?”
BMarshall asked, “Have we determined that a significant gap in coverage does exist? Has the board arrived at that conclusion? GMorris responded, “Not really.” BMarshall said, If we so determine that, the next question becomes, is what is the best way to fill that recognizing that another tower is going to be needed anyway? Can we reach a conclusion that with the models we have, the Hutchins report, and the drive test report, have they demonstrated a significant gap in coverage exists? Can we reach that conclusion?”
KO’Connell asked, “Is there a significant gap of service for ATT in the town of Greenfield? Yes.” JFletcher said, “There are different definitions for significant gaps. Are we talking about no in-house coverage, no vehicle coverage? KO’Connell said, “Our ordinance says they have to exhaust alternative sites.” MBorden commented, “You are not going to get 100% coverage in this neighborhood, especially with the ups and downs of the terrain.”
BMarshall asked, “Are we proceeding right now in this discussion based on the determination by this Board that a significant gap exists?” “Yes.” GMorris said, “We did a straw poll and do not need to vote on it as we are deliberating. When we met with the attorney he said that we could go back and reopen the items we’ve already voted on.” BMarshall continued, “So we agree that there is a significant gap in coverage in Greenfield that needs to be filled. So now we are having this conversation about what is the best way to fill it. ATT has brought this proposal as the best way to fill it. What we are discussing now is alternatives they have not brought forward, but which they have modeled for us at our request. So now you are asking us to determine
whether an alternative is there, recognizing that we are probably going to need another tower in town or south of town?”
GMorris said, “I don’t know that is not our determination. When I said I wanted to do some homework, I wanted to read these reports and look at those models because they have already stated from Zephyr Lake Road south that there will be no coverage with this proposal. So now I am looking at these things, where does that leave the gap? With these two alternative site, the only gap we need to worry about is from East Rd to Zephyr Lake Road. So is that the only gap we need to worry about? Does that warrant further review or rejection because all alternative sites haven’t been explored? If they use the fire station and the CMRC water tower, will those sites fill in the town except from East Rd to Zephyr Lake Road?”
MSteere said, “Based on looking at Gould Hill and those sites, there is less coverage from the fire station and water tower to East Rd. As network issue, I am guessing, the courts would look at it as if you don’t do that, at the extent that another tower would have to be put in, so what is the entire network going to look like?” GMorris said, “Before we do that, I still want to run this by the Town Attorney. We are going to look at the attorney for guidance.”
GMorris commented, “In the meeting minutes of April 25, 2011 we put together a list of needs (which GMorris read to the Board) and I am not convinced that we and the applicant have looked at all alternative sites. We requested that they look at alternative sites which should have been part of the original evidence to the Board.” MBorden read from District Regulations Section C, 3, the applicant shall have the burden of proving that there are no existing structures that are suitable to locate their telecommunications and personal wireless services and/or to transmit or receive radio signals. The applicant will provide written proof of all contact made with owners of potential sites regarding availability of potential space for telecommunications. GMorris asked if the applicant has achieved that.
We asked for letters to prospective owners of possible sites, which we have never received, even though requested twice. GMorris asked, “Have they met the requirements of the ordinance? I am trying to put us on a path where we’ve discussed that, everyone has their opinion and when we meet with the attorney, he can say that my opinion is right or not, or any other board member’s opinion is right or not, everyone’s opinion is noted. If you are comfortable with that, we will move onto another topic.
GMorris said, “Let’s discuss the waiver request for the driveway.”
MBorden said, “It is my opinion we should not to grant the waiver because we haven’t approved a driveway anywhere in town that steep. The driveway regulation Section 5.M.1 says no driveway greater than 19% will be permitted. We’ve determined that 50-60% of this driveway is greater than 17% with seven segments of the 13 segments are over 19%, beginning with the first segment at 32%. GMorris said, “If we were to reject this waiver, I feel that we should come up with a percent of the driveway that is over 17%.” MSteere asked, “What will we do with the waiver request?” GMorris asked if a member would make a motion or should we verify anything about the waiver with the attorney before we vote? MSteere wants to talk to the attorney first. Board agreed to
speak with the attorney first.
JFletcher commented about the vegetative buffer. “Do we have to subtract the cleared area that has been logged out from the 150’ vegetative buffer? This is a neighborhood, and this tree growth is dense.” GMorris asked, “Is the clearing is incidental to this application? Is there dense tree extending continuously 150’?”
BMarshall asked, “Are we going to reconsider the noise issue? The concern I have as far as I can see, is when I read the third noise report, the question that emerged is 2 emergency generators will be installed and not three as originally noted. BMarshall read a paragraph concerning noise levels from a November 23, 2010 letter from Noise Control Engineering, page 2. Why aren’t we considering three generators vs. two generators? Only two generators are mentioned here, but won't a third generator raise the noise level? BMarshall said, “The noise level rises with the number of generators per co-locator, so how many generators?” GMorris said, “It sounds like they have their two co-locators lined up, Verizon and Sprint. We’ve talked about a truck going up there twice
or three times a month depending upon the number of generators in use?”
MSteere said, “If the noise issue is a concern, we could put in a contingent in that a noise engineer could be hired to monitor the levels.”
BMarshall said, “It has been stated before that the landowner is not the one presenting this application, so are we giving him the right to due diligence?” MBorden asked, “Has he come to exercise his right and does he have this right to do this on his property?” GMorris asked, “Are we stepping on his feet if we deny this?” KO’Connell asked, “Are we denying him equitable use of his property?”
KO’Connell stated he felt that the wetlands issue and the driveway issue are interwoven and are not separate issues.
BMarshall stated, “There is a danger of a spill at the top of that driveway that will affect the aquifer, abutters, the landowner and a half a dozen of others in the area. If a spill were to happen, what will the culverts do?”
MBorden said, “The culverts will protect the road.” GMorris said, “Do the culverts direct a water back into its natural course to the wetlands or to a different location?”
GMorris asked, “Are you guys in a position to take our concerns to Matt? Then you can make your decisions based on his advice. I will call Matt tomorrow and set up an appointment for Monday, May 16th.
MSteere moved to continue deliberations to next meeting. BMarshall seconded. Vote carried in favor. Deliberations on Zephyr Lake Road cell tower to continue to May 23, 2011 at 7:30 p.m.
10:25 p.m. MSteere motioned to adjourn. KO’Connell seconded the motion. Vote carried in favor.
| 
