Minutes of Meeting— March 11, 2008
The Hudson Planning Board met at the Town Hall, 78 Main Street, Hudson, Massachusetts.
At 7:00 p.m. Robert D’Amelio called the meeting to order.
Present: Robert D’Amelio, Rodney Frias, Tom Collins, Dirk Underwood, James Vereault, Jennifer Burke, Town Planner and Teresa Vickery, Clerk
Saratoga Drive / Crestview Drive – Site Plan Review Cont.
Present were: Jennifer Lewis, Atty. at Law
Aldo Cipriano, Town Counsel
Anthony Marques, DPW Director
Mr. D’Amelio continued the discussion regarding the proposed cell towers at Saratoga and Crestview Drive. He asked if Mr. Marques would address the comments and questions that were previously raised concerning why the DPW does not want the wireless telecommunications equipment attached to the water tower.
Mr. Marques addressed the audience. He explained that 8 years ago the Request For Proposal (RFP) was written and the Executive Assistant’s Office requested the DPW’s input. Mr. Marques asked the Chief Operator of the Water Division of the DPW to research whether attaching to the tank would impact the distribution of the water from the tanks. To attach the telecommunications equipment the towers would need to be welded and there would not be any appropriate way to verify that the tank’s coating has not been disturbed. It is unknown whether this would effect the interior condition of the tank and the only way to check would be to look inside that tank and this could potentially contaminate the tank.
Another reason cited by Mr. Marques was the issue of tank maintenance. The tanks are repainted approximately every 20 years. Having this obstruction on the side of the tank would get in the way of the scaffolding and would result in unsafe conditions.
Mr. Marques also mentioned that the wire cables used to transmit the signal could possibly be used for vandals to climb the tank. Mr. Marques underscored that the purpose of the water tank is to provide water distribution to residents.
With this information gathered the Executive Assistant’s Office decided that the equipment not be attached to the tower and did not include this option in the RFP.
Edward Pagliuca, 48 Ontario Drive asked if this was negotiable. Mr. D’Amelio informed him that this is a rule and therefore not negotiable.
Andy Massa, 15 Michigan Drive asked Mr. Marques how close to the water tank would he consider allowing the cell tower to be. Mr. Marques stated that a 10-foot area would be sufficient in order to maintain the tank. Mr. Massa then asked Mr. Marques what would happen if the tower happened to fall. Ms. Lewis asked whether Mr. Marques is a structural engineer. Mr. Marques responded that he was not, however he feels that his years of experience qualify him to answer the question.
Mr. D’Amelio addressed the question concerning whether the Town could force Omnipoint to co-locate on another carriers existing tower. At this point Atty. Cipriano explained that this is not under the purview of the Planning Board. He explained that this is a site plan review and not special permit application. He then explained the process of site plan review. Atty. Cipriano informed the audience that Chapter 40A under Mass General Law gives jurisdiction of this issue to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Planning Board’s role is to review the details of the plan in regards to aesthetics, drainage, access and lighting. Mr. Frias asked that Atty. Cipriano clarify what he meant by aesthetics. Atty. Cipriano explained that screening, buffering and landscape design are what the Board is to
consider when looking at aesthetics.
Atty. Cipriano stated that the decisions of the Planning Board do not go into effect until the Zoning Board grants a special permit.
Mark Calvanese, 8 Champlain Drive asked how the Board could continue to review the plans when the fall zone clearly does not meet the requirements. Mr. D’Amelio explained that the applicant has previously stated that the tower will crumple on itself if it begins to fall. Atty. Lewis informed Mr. Calvanese that structural affidavits have been submitted to the Board. The true measurements will not be available until the order for the tower is placed. Atty. Cipriano said that this is an issue to be brought up to the Zoning Board.
Judy Sabourin, 14 Michigan Drive asked how close the tower would be to Margaret McDonald’s property. Atty. Lewis stated that the tower would be situated approximately 75 feet from her property line. Mrs. Sabourin expressed her concern if the tower fell it would end up in her backyard.
Rich Florez, 54 Fort Meadow Drive questioned how the Planning Board does not know much detail regarding the crumple points. Mr. D’Amelio reiterated that this is not within the purview of the Board, stating that this is an issue for the Zoning Board.
Bill Wade, 6 Crestview Drive stated that he could not understand that if the Board can consider aesthetics when reviewing a site plan why they do not consider the potential of a “cell tower farm” as an issue of aesthetics.
Mr. Wade went on to say that he does not agree with Mr. D’Amelio’s interpretation of Atty. Cipriano’s legal opinion. He believes that the Board does indeed have the right to compel the applicant to co-locate on an existing tower. Atty. Cipriano again explained his legal opinion to Mr. Wade and Mr. D’Amelio read it into the record.
Mr. Massa requested a copy of the Town’s RF Consultants report.
Mr. Pagliuca expressed his level of dissatisfaction with the level of representation by the Board. Atty. Cipriano explained that unless a site plan is “horrifically deficient” the Board should approve it.
Atty. Lewis informed the Board that if Omnipoint could achieve the same level of coverage with an 80-foot tower they would be willing to erect it at this height.
Ms. Sabourin asked if any trees were going to be taken down. Atty. Lewis stated that trees will be pruned and as little as necessary will be removed.
Mr. D’Amelio would like it conditioned that servicing of the tower take place only Monday through Friday from 8:00 – 5:00, unless it is an emergency.
Mr. Frias suggested that the Board do a final review of the plans before any conditions or final determinations are done. There were some lingering issues with the plans that simply need to be cleaned up.
Rodney Frias, seconded by Tom Collins, made a motion to close the public hearing for the Site Plan Review for Saratoga/Crestview Drive.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous
The Board will reconvene on April 1, 2008 at 7:30 to approve the site plans.
71 Parmenter Road – Site Plan Review
James Vereault recused himself.
Tom Collins, seconded by Rodney Frias, moved to approve the plan entitled “MFTS – Boston- 007, Marlborough, 71 Parmenter Rd, Hudson, MA 01749” as drawn by Black & Veatch of Overland Park, Kansas dated March 8, 2008 with following conditions:
A list of 24-hour emergency contact information must be provided to the Town Planner and the DPW prior to any work being done on site.
Hours of construction will be Monday through Saturday 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. No work or operation of machinery may happen before 7:00 a.m., in accordance with the town’s noise by-law or after 5:00 p.m. Per the Massachusetts General Laws, work on Sundays and holidays need to be permitted on a case by case basis by the Chief of Police.
Prior to the commencement of authorized site activity, the Planning Board Office shall be given 48 hours written notice. If the activity at the Project Site ceases for longer than 60 days, 48 hour written notice shall be given to the Planning Board Office prior to restarting work.
A copy of the conditions and all final approved Plans shall be kept at the Project Site.
Members or agents of the Planning Board shall have the right to enter the Project Site and to gather all information, measurements, photographs or other materials needed to ensure compliance with this approval. Members or agents of the Planning Board entering onto the Project Site for these purposes shall comply with all safety rules, Regulations and directives of the Applicant and the Applicant’s contractors.
The developer will install noise abatement device(s) as approved by the Hudson Planning Board, to reduce noise from the entire site, if total measured db level from the entire site ever exceeds the daytime benchmark predicted modeling of 47db.
The developer will conduct RFR measurements, up to 2000 feet away from the tower on the residential side, before and after installation of the new antenna for Mediaflo.~ Results are to be made part of the public record.~ The Planning Board’s independent RF Engineer, IDK Communications or if they are unavailable, one with similar qualifications and experience will certify that said measurements are in compliance with FCC’s guideline for “uncontrolled” exposure limits
Space shall be maintained on the Tower to allow the Town of Hudson Fire and Police Departments to located public safety antennas on the tower.
Vote: 4-0-0, Unanimous
James Vereault returned to the Board.
Adjournment
James Vereault, seconded by Dirk Underwood, moved to adjourn at 8:45 PM.
Vote: 5-0-0, Unanimous
Cc: Town Clerk
Department of Public Works
Jeff Wood, Building Commissioner
| 
