Planning Board meeting minutes: August 11, 2011
Members Present: Maggie Leonard; Chair, Bridget Krans, Barry Karson, and Stephen Enoch
Public Present: Karen and Richard Farcus of route 23 Monterey and Peter Valianos (left at 7:20).
To order: 7:12
Previous meeting minutes: July 14th meeting minutes; approved as amended. July 28th meeting minutes; approved as written.
Balloon float 31 Main Road: Stephen could not see the balloon from Lake Buel, however he did see it briefly around snake rock. Maggie could see it at the Dempsey property but not at the Hayloft Gallery. Maggie also looked on the Appalachian Trail and did not see the balloon. Bridget drove by and could not see it via a drive by.
Special permit: The board is still discussing the special permit that was submitted for the cell tower for 31 Main Road. Maggie noted that the access road has been “tweaked” a bit. Maggie has sent an email to Maynard Forbes of the Monterey Highway Department to ask him his input on the length of the access road.
Maggie spoke with Linda Thorpe the town clerk regarding the bylaw revision that was submitted to the Attorney General. Mrs. Thorpe stated that she sent the revision in on June 2nd and was recently informed that the AG office did not get it. Stephen also had Melissa Noe the Interdepartmental Secretary, check on the status for the Board of Health and Mrs. Noe stated the same result, that the AG had not received it. As a result the board has decided to base their findings on the bylaw revision keeping in mind that the AG has not approved the revision as of yet.
Waivers and Variances- The following are a list of waivers and variances being asked for by the Cell tower company wishing to erect a cell tower at 31 Main Road. The board discussed each request.
**Variance for 1.5 times the height of the tower away from the set back. Infinigy towers are asking for a variance on having to have the setback distance be 1.5 times the height of the tower. Barry wondered why they could not move the tower and put it on a mound rather than asking for a variance. It is a 160 foot tower- getting them at 1,710 above sea level. The board wondered; In order to get that same feet with a 199 foot tower how far would that be from the setback? How much would this impact the functioning of the tower? Maggie would like them to tell us what the tradeoffs are if they move the tower down further. Also what do the abutters think? ZBA investigate the effect on the property as well as the opinion of the abutters. The bylaw has a purpose to protect property towers. As a
result the board feels it is important that the ZBA investigates this. Stephen felt that they could not relocate and get the height required and as a result they need the variance. Maggie felt that she wanted to hear that from them. Can you be within the 199 foot tower height restriction and comply with the 1.5 times the height of the tower set back from the property line? Barry would like to know the reason they are applying for the variance. Will the tower not cover as much of the town if it is further away from the property line?
** cannot clear in excess of 25 feet around the cell tower- They would like a waiver from the requirement in the bylaw that states no more than 25 feet around the tower can be cleared. The board feels that they should state the amount that they want to clear and why. One reason stated was that for each cell company that co-locates a shed is needed and as a result more clearing will be required. The plan is designed for future tenants which our bylaw requires. Stephen suggested that we should state that the 25 foot clearing bylaw may be too restrictive and would like the ZBA to make a finding as to the number of feet that may be required of clearing. Barry stated that the ZBA should make sure that they make the finding for this particular application so that it cannot be
sighted as precedence for other applicants. Barry and Maggie suggested to state that “for this particular sight due to its remoteness the 25 foot clearing restriction may be too restrictive”. Stephen stated that giving a waiver on the 25 foot restriction would not take away from the 100 foot vegetative buffer.
** They would like a relief from indicating the height of the tower relative to the height of the trees. The applicant feels that the balloon float is more accurate than this. The board disagreed with this and felt that this variance should not be given.
**mutually agreed upon amount on the agreed upon consultant. The board felt that in our bylaw it does not state that the amount or the consultant would be mutually agreed upon. The bylaw states that it will be at reasonable cost. The board felt that it was the ZBAs decision on whom they hired and would make sure that it is at a reasonable cost. The consultant does not have to be agreed upon by the applicant. The planning board will just restate the bylaw in their finding.
** The board would like the ZBA to inquire about putting fire/rescue on the tower at no cost. Stephen suggested that we call the ethics hotline about asking for something prior to granting the variances. Maggie suggested that we could just ask them what are their policies in allowing fire/rescue to co-locate.
The board decided to have another meeting on Thursday the 18th to discuss the Keswick tower permit. The board will also meet on the 25th at their regular meeting. The ZBA and Mark Bobrowski will be present.
Special permit for Chestnut hill road: No reliefs are being requested from Proterra except for the 25 Foot clearing
Meeting adjourned: 9:20
Submitted by,
Bridget Krans
| 
