Minutes of Meeting— December 12, 2013
The Hudson Board of Appeals met in the Selectmen’s Hearing Room, 2nd Floor, Town Hall, Hudson, Massachusetts. At 7:00 PM, Joseph Peznola called the meeting to order.
Present: Lawrence Norris, Jim Smith, Dorothy Risser, Todd Pietrasiak, Darja Nevits, Christopher Tibbals, Jill Schafer, Jennifer Burke, Planning Director and Teresa Vickery Clerk.
Petition 1045: 7 Crestview Drive, Administrative Appeal Cont.
Present was: Mark Cook, Sprint Representative
Peter Sheer, Construction Manager, Alcatel-Lucent for Sprint
Faisal Shafiq, Radio Frequency Engineer, Alcatel-Lucent for Sprint
Martha Powers, Market Lead, Alcatel-Lucent for Sprint
Mr. Cook noted that he has submitted a radio frequency engineer affidavit as well as a construction manager affidavit for the record.
Mr. Cook explained that the applicant is proposing to increase in the diameter of the tower by ten feet; however this will not increase the size of the existing platform. Under their FCC license Sprint has a duty to maximize the effectiveness of every existing installation that they operate at. In order to do this they need to update the equipment on the tower. Remote radio-head units (RRH) are the new technology that is available. These are smaller equipment units used to facilitate the transmission and reception of signals so as to not have so much equipment on the ground. The coverage maps illustrate this fact. If Sprint did not attempt to provide the increased coverage they would be neglectful of the terms of their FCC license.
At the last meeting the question arose as to why the RRH units are not being placed on the ground instead of on the pole thus increasing the diameter. Mr. Cook explained that the RRH units only work on the ground when 24 coaxial cables are used which in this case is physically impossible as the cables will not fit within the skeleton of the pole. These cables cannot propagate out as they will interfere with T-Mobile’s antennas which are 10 feet below Sprints.
Utilizing the latest technology that is available to every carrier Sprint can use three hydro-flex cables instead of the 24 coaxial cables which will fit within the structure and supply the coverage that is needed to fill the substantial gap that is currently at the site. A minimum of 48” in diameter of the sheathing is necessary to fit the six RRH units, the three proposed panel antennas and the three cables as well as the mounting that will hold everything in place.
Bill Wade, 6 Crestview Drive asked why can Sprint not put their RRH units on the ground just like AT&T has. He also asked what the capability would be if the units were placed on the ground. One more issue he had was that he believes the applicant should supply more proof that the 24 coaxial cables will not fit within the frame.
Mr. Cook said that he cannot speak for AT&T. He did however note that he has sufficiently explained why the RRH units on the ground will not be possible. He showed the Board a photo of the inside of the tower to illustrate that the cables will not fit within the tower. The fact that it is a stealth uni-pole adds a lot of constraints.
Mr. Shafiq gave the Board a quick explanation of the radio frequency map.
James Smith, seconded by Dorothy Risser, made a motion to go into deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Lawrence Norris and Christopher Tibbals not voting.
Ms. Schafer noted that with the new telecommunications act states that if the change in not substantial the Board cannot deny the special permit. Ms. Burke noted that the original decision stated that any exterior modifications/changes made to the existing tower had to come before the Board for approval.
Dorothy Risser, seconded by James Smith, moved to approve a Special Permit under Section 5.9 to modify the previously approved Special Permit for a Wireless Communication Facility based on the following findings:
- The Petitioner has standing to the bring the Petition, and;
- The subject property is located in the SB Single Family District, and ;
- The use will not have an adverse effect on present and future dwellings in the vicinity, and;
- The use will not create traffic hazards or volume greater than the capacity of the streets affected.
- The issue of the Administrative Appeal has been addressed by the approval of the modification of the Special Permit.
Vote: 5-0-0, Lawrence Norris and Christopher Tibbals not voting.
James Smith, seconded by Dorothy Risser, made a motion to come out of deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Lawrence Norris and Christopher Tibbals not voting.
Petition 1046: 20 Lincoln Street, Special Permit
Present were: Ernesto & Valerie Jose, Applicants
David Wallace, Atty. at Law
Lawrence Norris convened the public hearing.
Dorothy Risser read the Right of Appeal.
The applicant is seeking to convert a single family residence to a two-family residence in the SB single family district. The dwelling is currently a one family residence with a doctor’s office on the first floor. The office has closed and the owner would like to sell the home as a two-family.
Mr. Wallace explained that this would generate less traffic as there would not be any patients travelling to and from the office. He also noted that there is ample parking and a second means of egress for the second level tenant. The exterior of the dwelling will not change at all.
Mr. Norris asked for a plan that shows a second means of egress and a parking plan. Mrs. Jose sketched this out to be added to the record.
Larry Bennett, 1 Warner Street explained that there are two community houses on either side of the property located at 20 Lincoln Street. He expressed concern that this property may also become a community house. Mr. Bennett is asking for assurance that this property will not become a tenement house. Ms. Risser stated that one of the conditions is that the property must be owner occupied. Ms. Nevits noted that this property will always have to be owner occupied.
Lawrence Norris, seconded by James Smith, made a motion to go into deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Todd Pietrasiak and Jill Schafer not voting.
Lawrence Norris, seconded by Dorothy Risser, moved to approve a Special Permit under Section 5.2.3.1 to convert a single family residence to a two-family residence based on the following findings:
- The Petitioner has standing to the bring the Petition, and;
- The subject property is located in the SB Single Family District, and ;
- The use will not have an adverse effect on present and future dwellings in the vicinity, and;
- The use will not create traffic hazards or volume greater than the capacity of the streets affected.
And with the following conditions:
- Owner occupation shall be proved by filing an affidavit with the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Building Commissioner.
Vote: 5-0-0, Todd Pietrasiak and Jill Schafer not voting.
James Smith, seconded by Darja Nevits, made a motion to come out of deliberative session.
Vote: 5-0-0, Todd Pietrasiak and Jill Schafer not voting.
Minutes
James Smith, seconded by Dottie Risser, made a motion to accept the minutes of November 14, 2013, as written.
Vote: 7-0-0, Unanimous
Adjournment
At 8:30 PM, Darja Nevits, seconded by Dorothy Risser, moved to adjourn.
Vote: 7-0-0, Unanimous
Document List December 12, 2013
Document |
Location |
Special Permit Application – 20 Lincoln St. |
Planning Office |
Minutes of November 14, 2013 |
Planning Office |
| 
