Planning Board
Preliminary Meeting Minutes –
Recorded by Sharon Rossi
October 10, 2011
Members present: BMarshall, PRenaud, JFletcher, KO’Connell, MSteere, MBorden, RWimpory, GMorris (alt)
Mail Received:
- Town Meeting Time Line Memo: listing January 26, 2012, deadline for budgets, February 9, 2012, date scheduled for public hearing on budgets.
- Greenfield Building Permits Y-T-D 2011
- SWRPC memo on 2012 planning and land use regulations with manual and CD update
- Memo dated October 6, 2011 from Christopher Rose, interim administrative assistant, re: 2012 budget which is due 10/18/11
- Letter from CIrvin; re: cell tower driveway plan
7:01 p.m. meeting opened with MSteere reading the meeting minutes of September 26, 2011. 7:14 p.m. MSteere completed reading September 26, 2011 minutes. Several spelling, punctuation and replacement of words were done. No substantive changes were made. 7:19 p. m. MSteere motioned to accept minutes as amended. PRenaud seconded motion. Vote carried in favor.
MSteere commented that the 2011 budget totals as read by BMarshall are pretty much on target. BMarshall commented that he would like to hold legal/consulting fees at $11,500. BMarshall said he will copy and circulate the budget to the Board before he submits it to the Select Board.
7:30 pm CIP Public Hearing
BMarshall handed out clipboard for audience signatures for the CIP hearing. He also asked if any members of Board needed to recuse or disqualify themselves. None did so.
BMarshall read the procedures to be followed in the meeting to the audience and then asked GMorris and MSteere to present the CIP document.
GMorris stated, “The CIP is a document that the Planning Board tries to work on yearly. We review the town expenses and possible expenditures for the next 10 years. Our goal is to help the Select Board and Budget committee to improve communications between departments and address fiscal concerns. The CIP is a planning tool. It was noted that JFletcher talked with the Fire Department to get their information and not BMarshall as indicated in the report.
DPW:
MSteere said that UNH is working with the Town in looking at all the roads in town to classify which need to be upgraded immediately and which can be held off. Once the final study comes in, the total of the DPW may change.
Library:
BMarshall said the Library trustees have implemented a new Information Technology plan and have solicited donations. They have been able to put in 3 new computers with the donations so their numbers are in the process of change.
Recycling Center:
MBorden reported that the Recycling Center’s goal is to capture more revenue and make the site more users friendly. He informed the public about the recycling centers wishes for a new dock, new containers, and how a new metals vendor allowed her to double her revenue. He also commented that the State requires a certain type container that ensures the safety of public. A new 4’ front overhang and 8’ rear overhang will provide a safer recycling center and to create more revenue for the center.
Parks and Recreation:
BMarshall asked about the maintenance of parks. It was noted that the park’s maintenance is listed under the town’s general maintenance line item.
Comments from the public:
JHalper said, “Thank you for getting the CIP started again. He noted on page 14 on the Recycling Center worksheet that the new bailer and crusher items should have a low number so the cost can be spread out over the years. He also noted in the public notice that the CIP is not a Capital Income Plan, actually a Capital Improvement Plan.
JRenaud asked, “Where is new DPW facility going to be built?” MBorden said the Miner family has donated land after Zephyr Lake Road on right side that contains a gravel bank.
GMitchell said there is very little depth to that piece of land and with salt sheds being built there a study needs to be done so the swampy area doesn’t get contaminated. He also asked if Recycling director did anything with the information he sent her about Sea containers (Metal Cargo containers). The information contained the lifespan, measurements for the sidewalls and roof, indestructibleness of the container. He fears that the center will grow to point where we’d be asking the 9 other towns to be part of our recycling. He also asked if we can get any federal grant for roads, bridges, highways. Did the committee look at that? MSteere responded that there is a continuous state plan and that is where federal money is allocated and the Town needs to get on the list.
GMitchell said, “If there are any of these funds available, can we get any of it?”
JMoran, asked, “Is there a current feel as to where the 2011 budget is? Have we overshot on the roads? MSteere commented funds for DPW are 72% spent; however, there is the fuel allotment which could be used. RWimpory commented that he has heard, ‘we are broke’ from current DPW.”
EAnderson asked, “Wouldn’t it make financial sense to look at bonding to cover some of the capital improvements?” MSteere said the budget committee is considering it. He also said a study is being done to get roads up to 85% for a good road factor, which would help in getting a bond, so we’ll see what it will cost us?
GMitchell asked, “Is the Road Commission monitoring what the DPW is doing?” MSteere said, “The Road Commission is monitoring what work is being done by the DPW. RWimpory commented, “It comes down to the townsfolk in what they vote for. He would like to maybe have a bond but wants to make sure the roads last longer than the bond.
JRenaud asked, “Could the Town get any funds from the Federal government for the Mountain Road National Wildlife Preserve?” MSteere said that it should be looked into.
JHalper said to get the word out on the budget committee hearings so that there is no unnecessary talk at town meeting. GMorris said a statement could be added at the end of the budget notices to remind townsfolk how important the budget is.
8:18 pm RMarshall closed the CIP public hearing
Four minute recess.
8:22 pm Public hearing for review of the driveway designs for 46 Zephyr Lake Road submitted by ATT, Florida Tower Partners, commonly referred to as ATT cell tower.
PRenaud recused himself and started recording this portion of the meeting. GMorris was asked to sit in for PRenaud.
BMarshall read the conditional approval dated May 2011. Eight conditions were listed.
BMarshall explained to the audience that new data was being introduced relative to driveway design. He then asked JStevens, President of Infinigy Engineering to make his presentation. EAnderson asked a procedural question: “Has the second proposal that is being presented tonight been reviewed by the Board? BMarshall said, it was e-mailed to the Board and it has been reviewed.
AWood asked, “Was the material being presented tonight available to the Public for review?” BMarshall and GMorris replied, “It was available in the Town Office and on-line for public review. The public will get a fair opportunity to review this information.”
8:32 pm JStevens began his presentation. He said in the original driveway, steepness was the major problem. Now this design has a maximum slope of 15% and requires an additional half acre of clearing on hill. This grading plan does trigger 150,000 square feet of terrain disturbance and requires an Alteration of Terrain (AOT) permit. Erosion controls are not all shown and would be have to be shown on AOT permit. Anything disturbed must be brought back with ground cover to make sure no erosion happens. Curves are sufficient for fire access. This design will meet all state requirements for erosion control.
MSteere asked, “Are there any slopes on this driveway over 17%?” JStevens said, “No, not on the new driveway. However on the existing driveway up to the house, there is a 17% grade there.”
JFletcher asked, “On the road side level, will all the trees have to be removed?”
JStevens responded, “Yes, but it would be seeded with grass to provide erosion control.”
MBorden asked, “Do you plan to upgrade the road from Zephyr Lake Road?”
JStevens answered, “I don’t want to disturb the wetlands, so only gravel will be added.”
GMorris asked, “You have to put up a bond when this tower goes online. What do you propose for this driveway after the tower goes away. Who will maintain the road after the tower is no longer in operation?” JStevens said, “It would revert to the owner of the property.”
GMorris said there is a lot of work going on next to the property line, is there anything in the driveway ordinance about disturbance next to the setback requirements? MSteere commented there isn’t anything in the setback requirements about disturbance.
BMarshall asked, “What is the amount of soil that will be disturbed or removed in cubic feet?” JStevens commented that about 500 yds would have been taken off site. BMarshall asked if that included the creation of the detention basin at the bottom of the hill. JStevens, commented, “No.” BMarshall asked, “Is there a retention pond within the wetlands buffer?” JStevens said, “No.” BMarshall asked, “Can you explain what this detention basin is?
JStevens said, “It is a grass pond designed not to hold water. Its goal is to recharge the ground and controls the overflow. It has to be designed to control overflow.
MSteere said my experience over time is that retention ponds fill up with sediment. How do you plan to maintain that pond? JStevens said with the AOT application, a written maintenance plan has to be given to the State.
JFletcher asked, “What is the total footage of the driveway?” JStevens replied, “A total 700’ existing driveway, 900’ of new driveway. Of the 900 feet, 500 feet, has a 15% slope which is 1/3 of total driveway. Roughly 60% of the new road is above 15%.”
8:51 pm the Hearing was opened to public for questions:
GMorris would like to reserve the opportunity to look at some of this information at a later time.
GMitchell said the question that GMorris asked about who will take care of the road if the owner sells this property is a concern. I feel the landowner should either take out a bond or personal guarantee that will be in their deed. If they should sell the property, the new landowners should be responsible for maintaining the road.
SChicoine asked, “Who is the applicant?” BMarshall responded, “Florida Tower Partners?” SChicoine said, “The notice in the paper said, ATT. So who is the applicant? It is very, very frustrating when talking about this.”
JMoran asked with the additional tree clearing, what is the expected impact on the original tower height? JStevens commented, “I expect that it wouldn’t change the average tree height.”
AWoods commented, “In theory, it has been mentioned several times that this road wouldn’t wash out. I would like from this applicant an assurance that an 11” rain will not do this.” JStevens said, “Based on the State requirements, I am guessing that an 11” rainstorm is a 500 year occurrence. My design meets Alteration of Terrain permit standards.” BMarshall said, “So the state standard for the AOT application is your assurance.”
Mrs. Woods commented, “I have done a lot of hiking in that area which has a significant traverse. Have you done enough testing into the depth to know what you are getting into?” JStevens said, “No, but if I hit rock, I will bench it.”
SKnight said, “I am really confused about this 150’ tree buffer. Clearly, this plan does not meet one of the town’s conditions, so why is the applicant presenting this design?” She presented to the Board a letter voicing her concerns. The letter was placed in the file.
EAnderson asked, “Along the lines of requirements as laid out in letter dated 5/26/11. I highlighted paragraph two, which read, ‘the driveway shall not normally exceed 12%, what does the word ‘normally’ mean? I‘ve heard 17%, 12%, 15%. How does this fit in with our regulation?” MSteere replied that it cannot exceed 17% no matter what. MBorden said “Let’s clarify this, “no more than 25% of the total length of the driveway can contain 17%.” BMarshall said, “Ed, the question you are asking is the question that we have to ask ourselves during our deliberations.”
Mrs. Woods asked, “If the pond is not maintained, what is the town process for ensuring that it is?” BMarshall suggested that a bond would have to be put in place to assure that the pond is maintained.
GMorris asked, “Is this plan the same as what you submitted by in July? So these slope numbers can be used.” JStevens replied, “Yes.”
An audience member asked, “From a distance say from Route 31’s cemetery, what is the appearance of that hillside going to be? Will it be benched ledge, rip rap, or sod?” Stevens said, “It would be re-seeded with mesh fabric unless it’s ledge.”
BMarshall asked LWhite, Fire Chief, “Do you have any life safety concerns about this design?” LWhite replied that the second turn looks to be OK, but what is the width of the first turn? JStevens replied, “12’ wide on first turn.” JStevens asked that LWhite get the length and overall wheel base from Peterborough department on the ladder truck.
Audience member asked, “How will the road be maintained during winter? And who will maintain the road after the tower is decommissioned?” JStevens said, “I will provide a letter stating who will be doing the maintenance, as required by the Town.”
GMitchell asked, “The Board’s consideration of the slopes should not be 15%, but 12% as stated in the ordinance. With the cuts and stuff, 500 – 600 yards of material will be taken offsite.”
JStevens commented that there will be a slight filling on fill downhill side.
EAnderson said, “I believe there is a correction to the slope on July plan. I did a 3 dimensional drawing and the steepest point is an 18% slope on the sharpest curve and a 16% is on the second curve. Taking a risk of trucking fuel up this road during winter is a recipe for disaster. This road will be a luge.”
Audience member asked “What will be the frequency of maintenance of the road will be. Gould Hill is notorious for people not being able to get up that hill which has a less slope than what is proposed here. How will it be maintained and how often? “
Arlene asked, “Will the applicant be carrying extra insurance if a hazard occurs on this driveway?” JStevens commented they never had a problem with not carrying insurance. We’ve always carried enough insurance.”
GMorris commented, “We could make carrying extra insurance as part of the approval.”
JRenaud said, “We have one of the highest quality aquifers in the State under that hill and all the insurance in the world will not replace that aquifer should a hazard occur.”
AWoods said, “The impact of this driveway is eyesore and will change in the character of the hill. It is very obvious. Please consider the visual impact that this plan would potentially have. “
Mark asked, “Has the town ever allowed a driveway greater than 12%. GMorris said, “No, not since the regulation was instituted. ”Some steeper ones were constructed before the driveway regulation was initiated.”
Mrs. Wood there is a noise ordinance. With this new design, and landscape change, what is being done for a noise study?
PRenaud, “I question the accuracy of the drawings, starting point, location of the slopes, location of the house, it appears that figures are disappearing from the plans.” JStevens said, “I will look at it. I can’t answer that question.”
JMoran said, “Just an observation about insurance, a more important consideration, is what happens to the runoff that affects the wells that are downstream? Whatever comes down that hill, eventually it will end up in my well.”
EAnderson said, “Point of reference, I did the calculations and the road on Gould Hill has a slope of 11.9% . You know how steep that is.”
PRenaud asked, “The road side levels at the top of the road, Is that a cleared area? So the dense tree growth would not be included in the buffer?”
SChicoine presented the Board with a wetlands map.
JFletcher asked, “Can you confirm the slopes on that curve?”
JMathias said, “As much as my neighbors don’t want Florida Towers here, I think, it is clear that there has been substantial investigation on the driveway regulations. My comment is that this design doesn’t meet those requirements, so I want to make it clear that I have valid concerns, about the noise and water overflow. It impacts me because water overflow will impact my well. Again, this is a round peg trying to be put into a square hole.”
MSteere moved that we continue public hearing after the next presentation. JFletcher seconded. Vote carried in favor.
BMarshall read letter from CIrvin, Conservation Commission Chairperson.
9:52 pm JStevens presented the second design. This plan uses the existing logging road with improvements. We’d re-stabilize the road with a lot less disturbance of 33,000 square feet. An Alteration of Terrain Permit would not be required. The challenge using the logging road is that the generator would be at the bottom of the hill, and then power cables will be fed to site. The fire access will only be available for snowmobiles and ATV’s. For fire suppression, a dry hydrant would be installed at the bottom with piping to top with a dry hydrant there. This is what is done in VT as they don’t allow roads to be built.
BMarshall asked, “Is the equipment shed still at the base of tower along with air conditioners?” JStevens, “Yes.” GMorris said, this very frustrating. It was brought up in a previous meeting by KO’Connell as to why the generators couldn’t be at the bottom of the hill and we were specifically told that it couldn’t be done. It’s in the minutes.” JStevens said, “We had a candid conversation with ATT and said, “You have to give us a better alternative. They do not want to do this. They only see things one way. They want their technicians to have access to everything.” RWimpory asked, “Will the equipment shed will hold snowmobiles, ATV’s?” JStevens said, “No.”
MSteere said, “How does this meet the driveway requirements? Does the access road meet the requirements? I don’t see how it does.” JStevens said, “This access road doesn’t meet the requirements.” KO’Connell asked, “This is typical of Vermont sites?” JStevens replied there are 30 sites in Vermont. KO’Connell said the technicians in Maine haul around their ATV and snowmobiles. ATT is learning that they have to access sites in this manner even though they don’t like it.
BMarshall asked LWhite to comment. LWhite said, “I’ve mentioned in past meetings that my concern is hazardous exposure to abutters in case of fire. This design would be prohibitive of my department being able to get to the site. What is the diameter on the drive?” JStevens said, “We’d have to make it work.”
GMorris commented, “One of my concerns is putting undue additional responsibility on the fire dept to respond to this site.” MBorden said, “I don’t see that we can even entertain this proposal.”
10:05 open to public for comment. JMoran said this design with reference to life safety, and response time, will seriously impact the fire department. Also I understand the tower are designed to collapse on itself and the way that tower falls, could land on the a/c units, and fire could result. Another concern is airborne life safety issues, such as an ultra light being entangled in the lines to the pole.
GMitchell said, “Going up with something like a one ton truck, the amount of damage to the road would be substantial.”
CDumas said, “This public hearing was to specifically respond to a letter from Board about the driveway. This appears to be a consultation. Please clarify this.”
BMarshall explained that the Board didn’t want any new information to be presented without a public hearing. This was an advisement from our lawyer.
Audience member asked about the fire suppression in the buildings.
JStevens said, “There is fire suppression equipment within the building that is a self contained system. If there is a fire inside building, a sprinkler will release a powder to stop the fire.”
AWoods commented, “I have several concerns. Generators will be a noise source with diesel engines running, traffic going up and down this dirt road. While this will improve the road, the construction equipment will create noise. A crane will be needed to set up the tower. That hill takes many lightning strikes so the tower is going to be a huge lightning rod. Getting equipment up that road will be difficult. A dry well needs to be at the top and how will it be connected?”
EAnderson said, “The FCC mandates that every cell site have an emergency back-up generator for every carrier on the pole. Also each must have they own generator to carry their own assets. Once this site is built, the Board will have limited power in what they can do or not do.”
EAnderson said, “Construction on this driveway is being done now. On the existing driveway, gravel has been added recently.” Current landowner replied, “No added construction has been done, I’ve repaired the current driveway due to washouts.”
SKnight asked, “How long does it take to construct this?” JStevens replied, “30-40 days.” SKnight added that is going to be very destructive to the environment. She asked “What happens when another carrier is added?” JStevens replied, “If another carrier comes in then there will be another 15-20 days of on the environment per carrier.”
RWimpory said, “On adding a co-locator’s equipment on the tower, how long does it take?” JStevens said, “New equipment on tower means another shed with takes another 15-20 days.
PRenaud said, “If another carrier doesn’t want to co-locate, then the second carrier, if they want this location, can request another tower. And they will get it. This second design does not meet any of these requirements that are in our driveway regulations, so I don’t see how the Board can approve this.”
GMitchell said, “With a number of conditions, I feel a bond is required for each. A lot of stuff is in there that is contingent and a variance is required for all of them.”
KO’Connell said. “Let me clarify, this(Driveway Regulation) is a regulation, not an ordinance. A regulation does not require a variance.”
JMoran asked. “If the Board does consider this second proposal, does it violate original approval?”
Mrs. Wood asked, “Are there any ATV regulations in this town? At what point in time, does this logging road become a road? How many times or how much use will constitute this being a road? How do our regulations define this?” KO’Connell offered that this is a trail and the town decides what is or isn’t a road versus a trail.
THunt said, “It appears that this proposal is being presented as a road rather than a driveway.”
EAnderson commented: “The Board’s 5/26/11 letter says there are alternatives, but where is the Board going with this comment? Is the Board obliged to approve the lesser of evils, or is the Board going to come to the determination that this isn’t physically possible? I am very biased about this application and I am an opponent to this cell tower. I interpreted the Board’s decision as a one shot deal, but now it appears that they can come back many more times. It appears that there is some ambiguity.”
GMorris commented to the audience, “They have to comply with the driveway regulations. They can come in here with 5 proposals and we’ll look at each and determine if they meet our driveway requirements.”
EAnderson remembered a comment of Board members that they …”want to bring this to a quick conclusion”…. ”If we’re talking quick, is one year quick?”
BMarshall commented the public has been heard clearly, but the landowner has rights and we want to be fair to all, public, landowner, applicant and the town. “We, the Board, decided one year was reasonable.”
GMitchell asked, “If any plan comes in, can the Board just look at it and if it is obvious that it doesn’t comply with our regulations, then the public doesn’t need to come in.” BMarshall said, “We were advised by legal counsel that any time new information comes in, it should be presented in a public hearing to provide the public with an opportunity for feedback.”
SKnight asked. “Who pays the taxes on this?” MSteere commented it would have to be assessed, and the landowner would pay it. BMarshall asked JStevens if he had any experience with this. JStevens said, “The land is assessed and it comes back to the landowner. Also it depends on the lease agreement.”
10:45 pm MSteere motioned to close the public hearing. GMorris seconded the motion. MSteere then amended his motion to close the public hearing so the Board can deliberate this evening. GMorris seconded. Vote unanimous.
10:47 pm Deliberations began.
GMorris motioned not to accept the second design as an alternative plan as we do not have enough information to be in compliance with the driveway regulations. MSteere seconded. Vote tally as follows: JFletcher voted no. GMorris, MSteere, MBorden, KO’Connell, RWimpory voted yes.
MSteere moved to reject the first driveway proposal as it doesn’t meet our driveway regulations for the following reasons:
- Sec V, M, in terms of the slopes in which 60% of the driveway are 15% or over.
- Sec V H, horizontal curves with a direction change of more than 30 degrees shall not contain slopes of more than 12% .
- The proposal does not meet our Telecommunications/Personal Wireless Service Facilities Zoning Ordinance Sec V, G, f, since the new construction will negatively impact the 150’ tree buffer.
RWimpory said, “Make sure that points are clearly stated when rejecting this. Check with legal on this. We need to stick to what we can quantify.”
MSteere motioned to continue the deliberations on this motion, pending advice from legal counsel, until November 14. GMorris seconded. Vote unanimous.
11:07 PRenaud resumed sitting on the Board. MSteere presented a copy of his draft of a proposed Open Space Ordinance for the Industrial/Commercial Zone and asked the Board members review it for the next meeting
11:08 MSteere motioned to adjourn. KO’Connell seconded motion. Vote unanimous.
| 
