TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Minutes of April 28, 2009
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular member Peter Hogan, alternates Mark Suennen and Dean Mehlhorn; and ex-officio Christine Quirk. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Assistant Michele Brown and Recording Clerk Suzanne O'Brien.
Present in the audience for all or part of the meeting were Heidi Akerman, David Clukay, Bob Lindgren, Ruth Trussell, John Ashworth, Katie Kachavos, Kim DiPietro, Gloria Chandler, Gordon Russell, James Lombardi, Esq., and Shannon McManus.
Election of Officers
The Board determined that due to the absence of Doug Hill and Don Duhaime, the election of officers would be postponed until the next meeting.
Discussion, re: Driveway Regulations
The Chairman stated that he had reviewed the most recent draft of the Driveway Regulations and had several comments and questions. He thought that there were two ways to approach the review with the Board where they could address the Coordinator’s substantial questions or they could go through some of the highlighted items he questioned. The Coordinator would then be able to present a revised draft next time. He asked the Board if they had any other comments or things they wished to discuss before they got started. There were no comments or questions from the Board.
The Chairman stated that on page 1 and 2 he thought items F, G and H should be re-ordered in the reverse order from their current placement to be more sequential. The Coordinator noted this. In Section 4, Scope, the Chairman noted that the order of the second and third paragraphs should be switched. The Chairman clarified that the Driveway Regulations applied only to Class V and VI roads if applicable. The Coordinator replied that for driveway entrances this was the case and that for roads higher than Class V status a State curb cut permit was required. She noted that if a driveway was part of a subdivision the driveway to the house was handled by the Board under the Subdivision Regulations. The Chairman thought that in the Definitions section,
highlighting the word being defined might be helpful, using italics, for example. He added that in regard to ditchlines adding a definition for it might also be helpful. The Chairman wondered about the definition for "Road/Street/Highway" but Mark Suennen noted that on page 3, “Road/Street/ Highway” was phrased with “when used within these regulations” and he would suggest keeping that in as each of those terms had separate legal definitions when used elsewhere.
With regard to Section 6, second paragraph, the Chairman thought that perhaps a comma had been dropped after the word “construction” because in existing construction a CO was already present. The Coordinator replied that there was no other process than the CO process and neither she nor Michele could remember why this phrasing was included in the language originally as there was no way one could have a permit for existing construction prior to obtaining a driveway permit, therefore, it did not make any sense.
The Chairman asked if on page 4, 7.7, there should be something included about what happened to a Driveway Permit once the Road Agent had approved or disapproved it. He noted that currently the language read that the Road Agent approves or disapproves and that was the end. The Coordinator stated that she would note in the language that the Planning Department would be responsible for forwarding the information to the applicant. The Chairman pointed out that throughout the regulations, for consistency, the word “shall” should be used where something must be done, and "should" should be used when something was a recommendation.
The Chairman stated that on page 6 he thought that driveway pre-requisites from Section 7 should not be repeated in 8.6. The Coordinator stated that this had been done in the event that someone was looking through the regulations they would catch this requirement even if they were only looking at individual items. The Chairman noted that Section 8.3 should allow for a site walk but not require one.
The Chairman stated that in Section 9, only section 9.2 stated that if requirements were not met a permit would not be issued. He felt that if this was true, then a general statement should be listed at the beginning of the section instead, stating that driveway should meet the following criteria or would not be approved.
The Chairman stated that on page 8, in section 9.10-9.13 there seemed to be repetition of the Road Agent’s discretion and he wondered if one general statement pointing to the Road Agent’s discretion and approval might suffice. He added that in section 9.15, the definition about width, etc., was already in the definition of what a paved apron included so it was not needed here. The Chairman stated that for section 10, the recommendations could have their language changed from “shall's” to “should's”. He noted that in section 10.6 the recommendation that “…any driveway crossing, wetland, body of water shall have all permits required…” he felt this should be in previous sections as a requirement. The
Coordinator replied that it was a requirement that wherever a driveway crossed a wetland, either as part of a curb cut or on a lot, a wetland permit was required. The Chairman thought that this could be a general statement at the top so that it was clear that this was required. He added that in sections 10.8 to 10.11 the same was true. The Coordinator stated that this was the difficulty in splitting the two types of driveway - existing lots and new lots - because the Board had to decide whether to repeat certain information in sections to do with only one type of driveway or instead to have one section that applied to both kinds of driveway and separate sections that applied to the individual types as well. She thought that it would be easier to have a general permitting process section and then a section that covered only existing lots' design criteria and a section for new lots' design criteria. She noted that there would necessarily then be some
duplication but someone trying to find information on only one kind of driveway would find it more easily and be less likely to miss things that were scattered in multiple sections.
The Chairman stated that in Section 16, Temporary Driveways, the section about the application process and the fee should be the first one just like in the Paving-Only Permit section and a time period noted. In Section 18, the Chairman asked whether the circumstances listed in 18.2 would require the same notification and enforcement as listed in 18.1 regarding maintenance of culverts. The Coordinator noted that Section 18.1 was a reflection of State statute which would follow the procedure as listed in the law, while the provisions in 18.2 were local in origin and would be subject to the enforcement actions listed in the back of the regulation.
The Chairman thought that there were process steps listed in Sections 19 and 20 that should all be kept together in Section 9 for ease of understanding. The Coordinator replied that they had tried to be chronological in the steps but that this suggestion could be done and the section could be broken down differently. The Chairman felt that the repetitive requirements could be deleted as they were already mentioned in specific sections. In section 17 he thought an “appeal in writing" should be added and “in a letter to the Planning Board” eliminated. He added that something might be added about the Planning Board holding a site walk in these cases as well.
The Chairman asked the Board if they had any specific comments or questions. Peter Hogan stated that in Section 15, “secondary driveway” could be deleted and driveways should be limited to one per lot. He noted that if that were the case then the second paragraph should be canceled otherwise it would make the first one inaccurate. Peter Hogan added that the purpose of not allowing multiple curb cuts was to prevent a house being set too close to the road. The Chairman asked if the Board wanted to continue to be involved in these issues rather than leaving it to the Road Agent, noting that it was more of a Planning Board issue than simple sight distance type considerations. Mark Suennen asked why the Planning Board would want to be in control of this
situation. The Chairman noted that it was to make sure of consistency and to provide a Board to make a decision rather than just one person. Peter Hogan thought that the Selectmen seemed more inclined to enforce things now and thought that the Planning Board should not be involved in these secondary driveways. Mark Suennen asked if it would be acceptable to limit the driveway to one per lot except as provided under section 15.2 and then the Road Agent could grant a second driveway if other requirements were met. Peter Hogan replied that he supposed this would be OK. He noted that he could think of options where a secondary driveway would be beneficial but a circular driveway was not one of them. Peter Hogan noted that it was impossible to write a regulation for every instance and common sense would need to come into play in some instances.
The Chairman asked if there were any major questions that the Coordinator still needed the Board to address. The Coordinator noted that the definition of "Driveway" should be reviewed as she did not know what to include as the correct destination point for a driveway in the regulations (dwelling/business establishment/structure/house). Mark Suennen suggested “…a private access from the edge of the Town’s right-of-way to the lot…” The Board agreed.
The Coordinator noted that on page 5, Section 8.3 contained wording for the requirement of an engineered driveway plan and the Board might wish to cross check the Zoning definition of Critical Areas to assure that it meets all the times the Board would generally decide to require an engineered driveway plan. She wondered if there were instances outside of what Zoning had written where the Board might still want one. Mark Suennen referenced Zoning section 204.9 regarding slopes, and asked if the Steep Slopes Conservation District applied to all of the Town and if it automatically applied to areas with slopes 15% or greater. The Coordinator replied that it did. The Chairman asked if a catch-all phrase could be added such as “…otherwise deemed
necessary….”. Peter Hogan thought it important to have some flexibility here because it would be impossible to write a regulation that could take into account all the potential future possibilities when an engineered plan would be required. The Board decided to think more about this section.
With regard to Section 11.6, the Chairman reminded Peter Hogan that he had not been in favor of requiring guardrails for 3:1 or steeper slopes. Peter Hogan thought that such a requirement could lead to guardrails being required for all culverts, for example, and noted that the run of a slope would be more determining than the grade. Mark Suennen suggested that the section should require guardrails only when "…the side slopes for driveways in a fill section are 3:1 or steeper." He went on to say that he would check the roadway design guide for the highway version of when to require guardrails. Peter Hogan thought he would be interested in seeing the requirements for the placement of guardrails from these rules, but did not think that the
specifications for type of guardrail would be applicable for a driveway versus a road.
The Chairman asked that the Board review Section 14, Common Driveways for discussion at the next meeting.
There being time before the first scheduled hearing, the Planning Board addressed Miscellaneous Business.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 28, 2009.
- Discussion re: Heidi Akerman, Bunker Hill Stables, Tax Map/Lot #1/12, Bunker Hill & Saunders Hill Roads, amendment to site plan, for sale of hay. (Heidi Akerman to be present)
Heidi Akerman and David Clukay were present for this item. Heidi Akerman stated that she wanted to add the sale of hay and shavings to her existing site plan as it was an incidental type of sale and it helped her cut down costs with the large amount that she needed to buy (tractor trailer loads). She noted that she could defray some of her costs by selling to her boarders or those taking lessons. Peter Hogan saw no issues with this as she was already ordering hay and this was already included in her site plan. The Coordinator stated that storage of the hay should be considered also. Heidi Akerman stated that she had stored the tractor trailer full of hay in the fire lane in front of the lot but was told by the Fire Department to move it. She had received permission to keep it there
until May 30, 2009. She noted that the owner was in Canada and could not retrieve it until then. She noted that the hay for her personal use was stored in the barn. Peter Hogan asked if the trailer in the fire lane would be a common occurrence. Heidi Akerman replied that it would not be. She noted that they would put the hay for sale where their plan noted hay storage currently which was in the lofts of the barn. Peter Hogan clarified that Heidi Akerman was not before the Board to request permission to park a trailer in the fire lane in front of her property. Heidi Akerman replied that she was not. Peter Hogan did not think that storing the hay in the barn presented any change or additional use. Mark Suennen agreed that if hay sales were incidental to existing customers versus individuals only coming to the site to purchase hay then he saw no issue. Peter Hogan added that he assumed that for farms there was always a small
percentage of bartering for goods and services also, however, if Heidi Akerman wanted to make hay/feed sales her primary use then that would be a different issue. The Chairman clarified that the only people who were purchasing hay were mainly those that were already boarding horses or taking riding lessons. Heidi Akerman replied that was correct and noted that she had traded hay for tack in some instances but she considered these instances incidental to her business. The Chairman clarified that the main question was whether these instances would remain incidental. Mark Suennen thought that until proven otherwise it could be considered as such and reiterated that the hay being sold was being stored in the existing storage areas noted on the approved plan. Christine Quirk clarified that trailers would no longer be stored in the fire lane. Heidi Akerman replied that was correct. The Chairman stated that a letter confirming this evening’s
discussion would be sent to Heidi Akerman by the Board and noted that if anything changed from what was approved on the plan they should return for subsequent discussion. Mark Suennen commented that it was appreciated by the Board that Heidi Akerman and David Clukay requested this discussion versus going ahead without it and risking a notice from the Board later.
Peter Hogan asked Heidi Akerman if she had resolved her other issue regarding manure on site. Heidi Akerman replied that she had listed it free on Craigslist and that many people had come to take it. She thanked the Board for their time this evening.
The Chairman appointed Mark Suennen and Dean Mehlhorn as full voting members for this evening’s hearings.
CLARK HILL TRUST by RR & JH TRUSSELL, TRUSTEES Adjourned from 2/24/09
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/12 Lots
Location: Clark Hill & Dennison Roads
Tax Map/Lot # 8/1 & 4/62
Residential-Agricultural "R-A" District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present was the applicant Ruth Trussell and her land use consultant John Ashworth. Abutters and interested parties present were Katie Kachavos, Kim DiPietro, Gloria Chandler and Gordon Russell.
The Chairman stated that the plan had been accepted as complete on February 24, 2009, with the Board’s deadline for action being April 30, 2009. He added that on the date of the last scheduled hearing the Board had received a request from the applicant for an adjournment to this evening.
Ruth Trussell stated that she did not have any modified Stormwater Management plans for submittal this evening as they had hired a new engineer since their last meeting with the Board. The Chairman asked Ruth Trussell when she thought she would be ready to proceed. Ruth Trussell replied that while she hoped they would be ready by the next meeting on May 12, 2009, she thought, realistically, that May 26, 2009, would be more appropriate as they were attempting to simplify the plan design.
Peter Hogan stated that he continued to think that the applicant’s concept of current use was not correct and that while having that specification run with the site or not would not affect how he voted on the feasibility of the subdivision he wanted to clarify with the applicant that having the land in current use would not mean that it would always stay that way. He added that current use was a counter-incentive as far as he was concerned as he would prefer that owners paid the additional tax. Ruth Trussell stated that having the land in current use would keep options open for those who wished to farm the land or have passive recreation and that she had submitted legal documents to the Planning Department earlier in the day
that highlighted these options through easements and covenants. Peter Hogan stated that if the applicant was backing up her preference for current use with legal documents this would probably accomplish what she wanted as a covenant required taxes and stipulations. Ruth Trussell stated that she thought a buyer may be attracted to a current use factor. Peter Hogan commented that he had never heard of “optional recreational use” status for current use land as was noted in some of Ruth Trussell’s submitted documents. The Coordinator clarified that quite a few land owners did this and it enabled them to get an additional percentage off their property taxes. Abutter Katie Kachavos added that the benefit was a 20% discount.
The Chairman asked if the plan would be modified with the new engineer on board. Ruth Trussell replied that it would not be that different. The Chairman asked if the long culverts were to remain as shown on the old plan. Ruth Trussell replied that some had been eliminated and others were shortened.
The Chairman asked if there was any issue in addressing the merger of the two lots at this point. Peter Hogan replied that he did not think there were any issues with the merger proposal but did not see any benefit in addressing it now due to issues with the trust that owned the land. Ruth Trussell thought that from a legal standpoint there was a benefit to addressing the matter now due to legal issues with the trust that owned the land. Peter Hogan stated that the only issue he could foresee would be that if the merger was approved and the subdivision was not approved the applicant would be left with one big piece of land. Ruth Trussell stated that this did not concern her.
Mark Suennen MOVED to accept the merger of Lot #’s 8/1 and 4/62 to herefore be known as Lot #8/1. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Coordinator noted an outstanding item being Board discussion of the Environmental Impact Study. The Chairman asked Ruth Trussell if she had seen the notes the consultant had made addressing his concerns as he had offered some alternative solutions. Ruth Trussell replied that she had noticed Peter Schauer’s comments regarding the option of splitting the common driveway for Lot #’s 6 & 7 into two individual driveways, however, she felt this could compromise a vernal pool nearby. The Chairman asked if any of Peter Schauer’s suggestions would be incorporated into the plan. John Ashworth noted that they would and added that they had been disappointed with the Stormwater Management Plan that had been designed by their former engineer as it had crowded this vernal pool,
therefore, they did not yet wish to commit to splitting the common driveway until their new engineer had reviewed it. He noted that there was already a lot of runoff that flowed into that vernal pool, i.e., it was not pristine. Peter Hogan questioned the phrasing “marginal” vernal pool as he felt this labeled it as not so important. He noted that even if there was runoff to it now it should still be considered of importance. Ruth Trussell replied that this was Peter Schauer’s phrasing and not hers.
The Chairman asked if there were any comments from abutters and noted that the plans were in the process of being modified. John Ashworth inquired whether a backlot’s frontage needed to be exactly 50’ as Lot #11’s was slightly greater. He stated that he asked the question since it was worded in the regulations that frontage defined a minimum length and the terms “frontage” and “width” seemed synonymous. The Coordinator explained that the Town had historically defined backlots with 50’ of frontage but did allow flaring of the width in the body of the lot. She added that in the past restrictions for the frontage width of backlots had not been in place but this was tightened up in the 1990’s, therefore, backlots were the only lots that stated a
requirement of exactly 50’ of frontage. John Ashworth felt that Section #204 of the Subdivision Regulations contradicted that point. The Chairman stated that Mr. Ashworth’s point was noted and that the Board would further research it for their next meeting. Peter Hogan offered that it was likely at some point the word “minimum” was deleted from the backlot frontage language. John Ashworth noted that Town tax map showed many backlot strips that had wider frontage. Peter Hogan replied that these lots existed prior to current Zoning. Ruth Trussell did not see why there was an issue if the frontage was wider than 50’, especially if it would contribute to good sight distance.
Since the deadline for Board action was due to expire on April 30, 2009, the Chairman asked Ruth Trussell if she would be willing to a meeting by meeting extension with the first extension being to May 26, 2009. Ruth Trussell agreed.
Christine Quirk MOVED to adjourn the application and also extend the Board’s deadline for action of Clark Hill Trust by R.R. and J.H. Trussell, Trustees, Major Subdivision, 12 Lots, Location: Clark Hill and Dennison Roads, Tax Map/Lot #8/1, Residential-Agricultural "R-A" District, to May 26, 2009, at 8:00 p.m. Peter Hogan seconded the motion.
Peter Hogan noted as a point of clarification that the only one who would have reason to not want the deadline extended would be the applicant and that the deadline served as their protection and not the Board’s. Ruth Trussell asked if it was possible that the Board might reach a decision on the plan by the next scheduled meeting. The Chairman replied that while it was a possibility he thought given the impending new set of plans being drawn that the Board would likely need at least one meeting beyond the next. John Ashworth asked if in regard to the Board’s reference to long culverts they meant the 240’ culvert on the former plan as it no longer existed. The Chairman replied that the Board was questioning the remaining lengthy culverts such as a proposed 60’ pipe.
John Ashworth replied that this pipe had also been shortened. Ruth Trussell noted that some legal documents had been submitted to the Planning Department earlier in the day and asked if Town Counsel would have time to review them before the May 26, 2009, meeting. The Chairman thought that they could be reviewed within a month. Peter Hogan cautioned the applicant that she should make sure that the documents would not be modified after Town Counsel checked them as they were bearing the review costs. Ruth Trussell noted that there were 2 sections in one of the legal documents where if a covenant was to be modified it would require a two thirds or 60% vote by the owners, however, it was unclear how to figure the percentage among them. She added that the vote language had been adjusted in one place but not the other so this was an outstanding modification at the moment. Peter Hogan thought the percentage was low as it only required approximately
half the owners vote. Ruth Trussell noted that she also had a vote but would not mind requiring a higher percentage. She asked if would have time to make such a change. The Chairman replied that the documents could be sent to Town Counsel within the week if the applicant wished to make these changes and should still be able to be reviewed in a timely manner for the next meeting.
The motion PASSED unanimously.
VISTA ROAD, LLC (OWNER) Adjourned from 3/24/09
ANDERSON & KRIEGER, LLP, for the new Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT & T)
(APPLICANT)
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Site Plan/Personal Wireless Service Facility
Location: Wilson Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #6/33
Residential-Agricultural "R-A" District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were James Lombardi, Esq., for Anderson & Krieger who represented AT&T, and Shannon McManus, site contractor. An interested party present was Bob Lindgren, chairman of the Francestown, NH Planning Board.
The Chairman noted that the application had been accepted as complete on March 24, 2009, with the Board’s deadline for action being May 28, 2009. He added that since the last meeting the ZBA had acted upon and granted a variance request by the applicant for the height above tree canopy and use of the Class VI road for access. The Chairman further added that a site walk was held on April 14, 2009, with a balloon test on the same weekend. He asked James Lombardi, Esq., for a brief review.
James Lombardi, Esq., wished to note that he was filling in for Doug Wilkins, Esq., who had been present for the last meeting with the Board but could not be here this evening. He noted that correspondence had been sent to the Board the week prior regarding their inquiry at the last meeting about the RFR report needing certification by a certified engineer per the Town's regulations where the applicant’s was done by a health physicist. James Lombardi, Esq., added that another correspondence had addressed the requirement of a report by a structural engineer for the compound. He noted that Doug Wilkins, Esq., had submitted a letter regarding some changes to the plan that the Board had required along with information regarding the type of antenna the
facility could accommodate. He went on to state that a letter from a certified engineer addressed the maximum radio frequency allowed in comparison with FCC guidelines and had moved forward with a request to the Selectmen for a Building Permit for the structure (copied to the Planning Board). James Lombardi, Esq., noted that photo print copies of the site had been included with these submissions. The Coordinator noted that the letters copied to the Board regarding the request to the Selectmen had been received April 23, 2009, which was not 7 days prior to this meeting (time allowed for review), therefore, the Board was not procedurally required to consider them at this point if they did not wish to do so. James Lombardi, Esq., stated that this was understood.
James Lombardi, Esq., stated that the two main issues outstanding at this point for the sites were access/Building Permit authorization by the Selectmen and the easement issue for the private way. The Chairman reminded James Lombardi, Esq., that this hearing should only address the Wilson Hill site information in case there were any interested parties that would be attending the following hearing for the second site. James Lombardi, Esq., stated that in that case the aforementioned issue of a Building Permit authorization by the Selectmen and access were the issues. The Chairman stated that there were also waivers requested by the applicant that needed to be considered for a complete application. He asked James Lombardi, Esq., if he could highlight
changes that had been made to the plan since the last meeting. James Lombardi, Esq., stated that the plan had been modified April 17, 2009, with sheet AO1 (Abutters Plan) including a new note #17 which stated that according to FEMA the proposed monopole was not located within the 100 year flood plain boundary. The Coordinator noted that the date of the map was the only revision for this section. James Lombardi, Esq., stated that he had been briefed about abutter information being supplemented and provided on the map. He continued with page A02 (Site Plan), addition of note #4 which stated whether any structures or driveways were located within 200’ of the “proposed site” versus the “parcel” a difference that had been noted to them by the Planning Assistant. The Chairman recalled that Bob Todd, LLS, had referred to this during the site walk and thought that the interpretation was that the plan should note
structures/driveways within 200’ of the “parcel”. He asked if that was a correct interpretation. The Coordinator clarified that normally the Board would go with “parcel”, however, the parcel being 100+ acres and looking at the issue as a matter of traffic to the site itself and visits to the site, this was a scenario where the Board could consider waivers and in fact it was contained in the waiver requests submitted. Mark Suennen noted that there was one more change on the plan that had not been highlighted which could be found on sheet #A02 where it showed improvement in the transition detail, a good thing, which had not been on the previous plan. The Coordinator asked if other numerous issues that she had noted on her checklist review were being addressed by the applicant. James Lombardi, Esq., noted that these items may be within other correspondence or on the plans themselves. The Coordinator asked
that the checklist be reconsidered and noted that there was one checklist for site plan review and one for personal wireless service facilities. James Lombardi, Esq., apologized for the different levels of understanding involved while he filled in for Doug Wilkins, Esq.
James Lombardi, Esq., returned to the subject of a letter submitted that was signed by Dr. Donald Haes, registered with the NH Bureau of Radiological Health Service Providers, stating that the site would emit less than half a percent of the allowable FCC levels. Peter Hogan asked why this was important. The Chairman replied that the issue was the requirement per the Town regulations of a specific type of engineer certifying and how the same issue had been handled in the past. Peter Hogan stated that this could be an issue that dragged on needlessly and while he did not care about the percentage of emissions based on the fact that the applicant was installing, not inventing a cell tower, he suggested that they obtain the correct signature stamp and move on. James Lombardi, Esq., stated that they would abide by the Board’s decision but wished to note that Dr. Haes had represented them many times for this information given his background and experience. He added that they
would go with the Board’s preference although it would be more costly and likely cause delays. The Chairman noted that arguably, if the applicant had read the requirement correctly they might have submitted the correct item to begin with.
James Lombardi, Esq., stated that Doug Wilkins, Esq., had submitted the notice of the ZBA’s acceptance for variance and copies of the request to the Selectmen for access/Building Permit authorization per RSA 674:41, along with half sized sets of plans and a full sized set to the Planning Department the week prior that also included recent amendments and the signed letter by the structural engineer. He added that a letter dated April 23, 2009, included photos of the site, equipment brochures, etc. Shannon McManus noted that the photos were similar to what the proposed installation would reflect.
The Chairman wished to address the waivers submitted and started with #1 the requirement being that “Ground-mounted personal wireless service facilities shall not project higher than twenty (20) feet above the average tree canopy height located within an area defined by a fifty foot (50’) radius or perimeter of the mount, security barrier, or designated clear area for access to equipment, whichever is greatest. [emphasis supplied].” He noted that this item was one for which the ZBA granted their variance, therefore, it was not applicable for the Board to address.
The Chairman continued with waiver #2, the requirement being that “Use of abutting properties shall be identified with approximate location of the structures thereon including access roads.” He noted that the applicant’s justification for the waiver as noted on the submission stated that “AT&T’s proposed facility would be located on 150+/- acre parcel in the “R-A” District and given the size of the 150 acre property compared to the 2,500 s.f. fenced compound, the plans submitted were sufficient to evaluate the merits of its proposal and strict
compliance with this provision would result in an identifiable hardship to AT &T.” Peter Hogan did not think that the applicant needed to identify anything further. Mark Suennen disagreed, noting that items should be identified as residences, commercial, etc. The Coordinator explained that, historically, this interpretation was meant as the Zoning District a lot fell in and the approximate location of structures thereon. The Chairman stated that he had no issue with this item. Mark Suennen thought that an aerial map with approximate footages to structures should be provided. Peter Hogan stated that to him this was irrelevant as there were no structures within the fall zone. Dean Mehlhorn and Christine Quirk agreed. The Chairman asked that a note be added to the plan stating
the Zoning classification. Shannon McManus noted that the current use was listed as “residential” on the top left of the front page of the plan.
Peter Hogan MOVED to grant the waiver requested for relief to Site Plan Regulations 2.1(G) for use of abutting property identification with approximate location of structures thereon including access roads. Mark Suennen seconded the motion. Christine Quirk-AYE, Peter Hogan-AYE, Dean Mehlhorn-AYE, Mark Suennen-NAY. The motion PASSED.
The Chairman stated that the next waiver request was to the requirement of “Detailed maps showing all of the carrier’s current externally visible tower and monopole locations in the state within a twenty mile radius, both active and inactive.” He noted that the applicant’s justification for the waiver as noted on the submission stated that “AT&T has included an RF report which includes a composite coverage map of all existing AT&T facilities within the Town of New Boston and those within seven miles of the borders of the Town. As demonstrated by the RF report, AT&T needs the proposed Facility to adequately address a significant coverage area. AT&T and requests a limited waiver from this requirement, to the extent it requires detailed maps showing
all of AT&T’s facilities outside of New Boston and outside 7 miles from the New Boston town lines but “within a twenty mile radius both active and inactive.” This information is not germane to evaluating the merits of the proposed Facility and it will result in an identifiable hardship to AT&T to produce it.” Mark Suennen agreed with this justification and stated that he would accept the 7 miles as a good faith effort. Interested party Bob Lindgren, chairman of the Francestown, NH, Planning Board, noted that AT&T currently had three cell towers going up in their town, two in Antrim, NH, two in Weare, NH, and one or two each in the towns of Hancock, Peterborough and Greenfield, NH. He noted that it might interest the Board to know that Francestown, NH, had asked for a rollout plan on a regional basis due to the co-dependent nature of the towers that seemed to cause shifting of nearby cell tower options as each one went
up. The Chairman stated that in the case for New Boston two cell towers were being proposed for simultaneous installation and did not think those terrains affected areas for which the towers would provide coverage, i.e., the two proposed towers needed to go in certain locations to provide coverage for the issues of the valley-like terrain through Town. He felt in this case the measure was close enough. The Board agreed.
Mark Suennen MOVED to grant the waiver requested for detailed maps showing all of the carrier’s current externally visible tower and monopole locations in the state within a twenty mile radius, both active and inactive in favor of the information submitted within a 7 mile radius. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman read the fourth waiver request for the requirement of “Site descriptions for each of the above locations showing the antenna height and diameter and all externally visible structures.”
Peter Hogan MOVED to grant the waiver requested for Site Plan Regulations section 3.4(10)-site descriptions for each of the above locations showing the antenna height and diameter and all externally visible structures. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman read the fifth waiver request for “Physical features on the site and within 300 feet of the site.” He noted that the applicant’s justification for the waiver as noted on the submission stated that “The plans submitted contain the relevant physical features on the site proximate to the proposed Facility. To the extent additional details are required on the 150 acre site of properties within 300’ of the site, AT&T requests a waiver of this provision. Strict compliance with this provision will result in an identifiable hardship to AT&T.” Mark Suennen recommended that a definition of “site” could be: the physical complex, driveway and fall zone. The Chairman and Peter Hogan replied that they agreed with
such a definition and other Board members did not disagree. The Chairman stated that given such a definition, the applicant had not met the requirement. James Lombardi, Esq., inquired about physical features. Peter Hogan noted these to be things such as outcroppings, trees and ledge. The Chairman stated that the Board was defining the site to be the fall zone as well as the access drive to the road. Peter Hogan did not agree with including the Fall zone. The Board agreed that site would be defined as the physical compound and access driveway. Shannon McManus thought that on previous waivers the Board had noted that AT&T did not need to show structures and asked if this was not the same scenario. The Chairman noted that the example to which Shannon McManus referred was for all abutting properties. Shannon McManus asked if the Regulations had a definition of “features”. The Chairman replied that it did not,
therefore, the applicant could proceed with the one the Board had just agreed upon. He added that AT&T should also be sure to note man made structures also. Mark Suennen noted that sheet A03 of the Old Coach Road cell tower plans had a better image and that they could put a 300’ radius around that and show physical features easily, as an example. The Board agreed.
Mark Suennen MOVED to deny the waiver requested for Site Plan Regulations section 3.5 (11), Physical features on the site and within 300 feet of the site, noting that the applicant should produce a plan showing the physical site as defined this evening by the Board. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman read the sixth waiver requested for the requirement of “Soil information based on the local soil survey.” He noted that the applicant’s justification for the waiver as noted on the submission stated that “AT&T believes this application letter, the materials submitted with the application, and testimony to be provided at the public hearing for the
proposed Facility should be sufficient for the board to make its determination. Strict compliance with this provision will result in an identifiable hardship to AT&T.” The Coordinator noted that this requirement involved simply studying the Soil Conservation Service Soils Map for Hillsborough County, Eastern Part, and listing the soil types for the lot. She noted that she would assume the site engineers would be interested in this information anyway in terms of siting and constructing the cell tower. The Chairman stated that the applicant should reference the soil maps and note the soil types on the plan. The Board agreed.
Mark Suennen MOVED to deny the waiver requested for Site Plan Regulation section 3.5 (12), Soil information based on the local soil survey, noting that the applicant should reference the Soils Map and note the soil types on the plan. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
James Lombardi, Esq., asked how the soil information provided on the plan fell short as page #2, sheet G01 discussed soil compaction for slopes on grade. Mark Suennen explained that the information to which James Lombardi, Esq., referred were more for the contractor to follow and that the information needed for the plan should be taken from the Hillsborough County Soil Survey.
The Chairman read the seventh waiver requested for the requirement to note “All natural features, including streams, ponds, wetlands, etc.” He noted that the applicant’s justification read: “The plans submitted contain the relevant natural features of the property proximate to the proposed Facility. To the extent additional details are required concerning the natural features of the 150 acre property, AT& T requests a waiver of this provision. Strict compliance with this provision will result in an identifiable hardship to AT&T.” The Chairman suggested that the applicant could add natural features within 300’ when doing the work on physical features. The Board agreed.
Mark Suennen MOVED to deny the waiver request for Site Plan Regulations section 3.5 (13), All natural features, including streams, ponds, wetlands, etc., such that the applicant will submit notation of these items within 300’ of the fixed fence compound and driveway. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman read the eighth waiver requested for the requirement of “Existing buildings and structures within five hundred feet of the site.” He noted that the applicant’s justification read: “AT&T believes the application letter, the materials submitted with the application, and testimony to be provided at the public hearing for the proposed Facility should be sufficient for the Board to make its determination. Strict compliance with this provision will result in an identifiable hardship to AT&T.” Mark Suennen stated that the previous denials of other waivers would supply information needed here. The Board agreed.
Mark Suennen MOVED to grant the request for the waiver to Site Plan Regulation, section 3.5 (16), Existing buildings and structures within five hundred feet of the site, as previous denials of other waivers would supply information needed within 300’. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman read the ninth waiver requested which was to Site Plan Regulations section 3.5 (22) “Existing and proposed methods of handling stormwater runoff, and the direction of the flow indicated by arrows.” He noted that the applicant’s justification read: “The requirement is not applicable as site development for the proposed Facility will not materially increase the impervious areas of the 150 acre property. AT&T requests a waiver of this provision.” Peter Hogan thought this requirement should be fulfilled so that this information was provided. Mark Suennen added that he thought existing runoff should be determined also so that the Town would know what impacts the work caused, if any. The Board agreed.
Peter Hogan MOVED to deny the waiver requested to Site Plan Regulations section 3.5 (22), Existing and proposed methods of handling stormwater runoff, and the direction of the flow indicated by arrows. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman noted that there were many issues with runoff in the Town so their decision on this waiver should not be viewed as unusual. James Lombardi, Esq., clarified that the Board was looking for confirmation of ways that the site could impact runoff. The Chairman explained that this was meant for existing and proposed runoff. James Lombardi, Esq., noted that the site would change to the extent that the area for the tower complex would be flattened to accommodate it. The Chairman stated that an issue was the 10% grade driveway from the tower location to the road and that depending on what was done to the site runoff could be increased with flows going down the driveway. Mark Suennen added that on the recently held site walk definite signs of erosion were noted on the existing driveway
with a parallel ditch along the driveway capturing water currently. He thought residents living downhill from the site would be interested to know this information also.
The Chairman read the tenth waiver requested for the requirement of: “Sizes and locations of all stormwater drain lines, catch basins, drywells, drainage ditches, retention basins and culverts.” He noted that the applicant’s justification read: “The plans submitted satisfy this requirement is not applicable, as site development for the proposed Facility will not materially increase stormwater flow. AT&T requests a waiver of this provision.” The Chairman stated that he was not convinced by this justification and noted that work on the previous item should identify these details too. The Board agreed.
Mark Suennen MOVED to deny the waiver requested for Site Plan Regulation section 3.5 (23), Sizes and locations of all stormwater drain lines, catch basins, drywells,
drainage ditches, retention basins and culverts. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman read the eleventh waiver requested for the requirement of: “Colors of the proposed personal wireless service facility represented by a color board showing actual colors proposed for all equipment. Also include a picture of similar equipment.” He noted that the applicant’s justification read: “AT&T believes the application letter, the materials submitted with the application, and testimony to be provided at the public hearing for the proposed Facility should be sufficient for the Board to make its determination. AT&T hereby requests a waiver of this provision concerning the Color Board.” The Board agreed with this justification.
Peter Hogan MOVED to grant the waiver requested to Site Plan Regulation section 3.7 (C), Colors of the proposed personal wireless service facility represented by a color board showing actual colors proposed for all equipment. Also include a picture of similar equipment. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman read the twelfth waiver requested for the requirement stating: “A statement shall be provided listing the existing and maximum future potential measurements of noise from the proposed personal wireless service facility, measured in decibels Ldn (logarithmic scale, accounting for greater sensitivity at night). The statement shall be certified and signed by an acoustical engineer, stating that the stated noise measurements are accurate and meet the Noise Ordinance (if any) of the Town of New Boston. The statement shall include the following: A. Existing or ambient: the measurement of existing noise. B. Existing plus the proposed personal wireless service facility: maximum estimate of noise from the proposed personal wireless service facility plus the existing noise
environment. C. Existing plus the proposed personal wireless service facility plus cumulative: maximum estimate of noise from the proposed personal wireless service facility plus the maximum estimate of noise from the total addition of co-located facilities plus the existing noise environment.” He noted that the applicant’s justification read: “The proposed Facility is remotely sited on a large 150+/- acre parcel, and buffered from view by existing trees and proposed vegetation. Any noise from the HVAC for the equipment shelter or the back-up emergency generator will be attenuated by distance, topography and vegetation. AT &T requests a waiver of this provision, as strict compliance with this provision will result in an identifiable hardship to AT&T.” The Chairman asked if the town had a noise ordinance. The Coordinator replied that it did not. The Chairman clarified that the generator fitted
with the complex would emit noise in the event of turning on during a power failure. Shannon McManus replied that was correct and added that otherwise the complex emitted a low hum. The Chairman noted that the only people who may care about this resided in the two houses located at the end of the site’s driveway and further noted that they were not present at the hearing this evening.
Mark Suennen MOVED to grant the waiver requested to Site Plan Regulation section 3.8, to provide a list of the existing and maximum future potential measurements of noise from the proposed personal wireless service facility, measured in decibels Ldn (logarithmic scale, accounting for greater sensitivity at night) per the aforementioned specifications. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman read the thirteenth waiver requested for the requirement: “Sight Lines and Balloon/Crane Test-Lines representing the sight line showing the viewpoint (the point from which the view is taken) and the visible point (the point being viewed) as described below: 1. Existing (before condition) photographs. Each sight line shall be illustrated by four inch by six inch or larger color photographs of what can be currently seen from any public road or residential building identified above. 2. Balloon or Crane Test. Within fourteen (14) days of acceptance of the site plan application by the planning board, the applicant shall arrange for a balloon or crane test at the proposed site to illustrate the height of the proposed facility. The date, time and location of this test shall be
advertised in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town at least (10) days prior to the test, and the balloon or crane must be left in place for a minimum of two (2) days or forty-eight (48) hours. 3. Proposed (after condition) photographs. Each of the existing condition photographs shall have the proposed facility superimposed on it to show what will be seen from the public roads and residences when the facility is constructed.” He noted that this waiver no longer applied as the balloon test had already been performed. Mark Suennen added that the “2 day or 48 hour” stipulation had been fulfilled even though the balloon was taken down in the evening as there would have been now way to view it after dark.
Mark Suennen MOVED to grant the waiver requested to Site plan Regulation section 3.12 (A), Sight Lines and Balloon/Crane Test, as it had already been performed and based on good faith daylight testing for two consecutive days. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman read the fourteenth waiver requested for the requirement: “Elevations-Siting elevations, or views at-grade from north, south, east and west for a one hundred (100) foot radius around the proposed facility, plus from all existing public and private roads that serve the subject property. Elevations shall be at one-quarter inch equals one foot (1/4” = 1’) or one-eight inch equals one foot (1/8” = 1’) scale and show the following: 1. Antennas, mounts, materials used to reduce visual impact, and equipment shelters(s), with total elevation dimensions and AGL of the highest point. 2. Security barrier. If the securitybarrier will block views of the facility, the barrier drawing shall be cut away to show the view behind the barrier. 3. Any and all structures of the
property. 4. Existing trees and shrubs at current height and proposed trees and shrubs at proposed height at time of installation, with approximate elevations dimensioned. 5. Grade changes, or cuts and fills, to be shown as original grade and new grade line, with two-foot contours above mean sea level.” He noted that the applicant’s justification read: “AT&T believes the application letter, the plans and other materials submitted with the application, and testimony to be provided at the public hearing for the proposed Facility should be sufficient for the Board to make its determination. To the extent this provision requires more detailed information, AT&T requests a waiver of this provision. Strict compliance with this provision will result in an identifiable hardship to AT&T.” The Board agreed.
Mark Suennen MOVED to grant the waiver requested to Site Plan Regulation section 3.12 (B), Elevations-Siting elevations, or views at-grade from north, south, east and west for a one hundred (100) foot radius around the proposed facility, plus from all existing public and private roads that serve the subject property (specs noted above). Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman read the fifteenth waiver requested, for the requirement of: “Storm drainage, erosion and sedimentation control measures, and snow storage- 4.5 Storm drainage of the site shall be designed for a 50 year flood and if an existing drainage system to which the site drainage system will be connected is inadequate, provisions shall be made for retention and gradual release of storm water in order to meet the 50 year flood demand. 4.6 Provisions shall be made for acceptable erosion and sedimentation control measures, per the Stormwater Management and Sediment and Erosion Control Regulations contained in the Town of New Boston Subdivision Regulations, (Amended 6/25/02 and 8/10/04.) 4.7 Provisions shall be made for snow storage during winter months.” He noted that the
applicants justification read: “These sections are not applicable, as the proposed, unmanned facility will not materially increase storm drainage, not materially increase erosion and sedimentation, and not require snow removal during the winter months. Strict compliance with this provision will result in an identifiable hardship to AT&T.” The Chairman clarified with Shannon McManus that the applicant had no plans to plow the access to the facility. Shannon McManus replied that was correct and that in heavy snow, snowmobiles would be used to access the facility for maintenance checks, etc. The Chairman stated that he would prefer to wait until the results of the information that was needed on the plan based on the Board’s denial of the ninth and tenth waivers before making a decision on this request. The Board agreed.
The Chairman read the sixteenth waiver requested for the requirement: “Base Flood Elevation-The applicant shall include Base Flood Elevation (BFE) data for all proposals for development greater than 50 lots or 5 acres.” He noted that the applicant’s justification read:
“While the lot exceeds 5 acres, the disturbed area will be a small fraction of that area. Strict compliance with this provision will result in an identifiable hardship to AT&T.” Mark Suennen noted that the Board had determined that the “site” was smaller than 5 acres, therefore, this waiver request was not applicable. The Board agreed.
Mark Suennen MOVED to grant the waiver requested for the requirement of Base Flood Elevation per Ste Plan Regulations section 4.16(A). Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
James Lombardi, Esq., asked if there was an outlying limit for Site Plan Regulation section 3.5 (13), Natural Features (waiver was denied by the Board). Mark Suennen replied that by the regulations all natural features were defined as ponds, streams and wetlands, etc. He added that he thought this outline could be performed per the “site” and not the “parcel”. The Board agreed.
James Lombardi, Esq., asked for clarification on the letter signed by Dr. Haes, a health physicist (regarding certification of the RFR report and the Board’s notation that a signoff was required by a certified engineer per Town's regulations) was considered stalled or pending. The Chairman replied that it was pending review of what the Town had accepted in the past. Mark Suennen clarified that any submissions by the applicant needed to be submitted by May 19, 2009, in order to be considered at the next hearing if it was to be scheduled for May 26, 2009.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn the application of Vista Road, LLC (Owner), Anderson and Krieger, LLP, for New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T) (Applicant), Major Site Plan, Personal Wireless Service Facility, Location: Wilson Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #6/33, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to May 26, 2009, at 8:30 p.m. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 9:33 p.m. the Board took a 7 minute break.
THOMAS LORDEN (OWNER) Adjourned from 3/24/09
ANDERSON & KRIEGER, LLP, for New Cingular Wireless Service PCS, LLC (AT&T)
(APPLICANT)
Public Hearing/Major Site Plan/Personal Wireless Service Facility
Location: Old Coach Road
Tax Map/Lot #8/132
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were James Lombardi, Esq, of Anderson & Krieger who represented AT &T, and Shannon McManus, site contractor. An interested party present was Bob Lindgren, chairman of the Francestown, NH Planning Board.
The Chairman stated that this hearing was similar to the last where the modified plans submitted by the applicant and had come in too late for the Board to review for discussion at tonight’s hearing. He added that it had been noted at the recently held site walk regarding the balloon test, that the balloon had been staked at the wrong location by approximately 40’. However he did not think this was a difference of any significance. The Chairman added that he had spoken with Doug Wilkins, Esq., on this and he had noted that the new plans would show this discrepancy. He asked about the ongoing right-of-way issue for access to the site. Shannon McManus replied that this was still being addressed. James Lombardi, Esq., added that they were close to an
agreement. The Chairman stated that in the interest of time the three letters submitted looked similar to those submitted for the previous application. He asked if there were any notable differences between the two sets. James Lombardi., Esq., replied that there was a technical difference in the letter to the Selectmen for this application where the applicant was asking for approval of the use of the existing access route from Old Coach Road to the site. He noted that, in addition, sheet A03 which compared bearings and distances had been added to the plan set. The Chairman clarified that sheet A02 addressed the balloon staking measurement that had presented as a discrepancy. James Lombardi, Esq., stated that sheet A03 addressed drainage and noted that there were no drainage ditches or swales (per note #6, revised 4/24/09). The Chairman and Coordinator stated that the Board did not have the plans that reflected this and that it should have
been submitted with the April 27, 2009, letter by Doug Wilkins, Esq. James Lombardi, Esq., stated that sheet A01, Abutters Plans, were the same as those for the previous hearing (had been supplemented). He added that note #4 stated that there were no structures on the driveway within 200’ of the site. James Lombardi, Esq., stated that the new plans (4/24/09) compared bearings and distances and added that there were no significant swales or drainage ditches. The Chairman asked if the cement tank pad for the fuel tank noted on the plan was lipped or flat. Shannon McManus replied that it was flat. Bob Lindgren, Francestown, NH planning board chairman, noted that the tank pads proposed by AT&T in his town were lipped and were a new requirement. Shannon McManus noted that the tank was double walled and that this may be mentioned on the specification sheets. The Board determined that if this were the case than the presence of a
lipped pad was not as much of an issue. The Chairman stated that the same issues existed for this application as the previous one concerning the RF report and who was required to sign off on it per the regulations.
The Chairman once again addressed each of the waivers starting with #1 the requirement being that “Ground-mounted personal wireless service facilities shall not project higher than twenty (20) feet above the average tree canopy height located within an area defined by a fifty foot (50’) radius or perimeter of the mount, security barrier, or designated clear area for access to equipment, whichever is greatest. [emphasis supplied].” He noted that this item for which the ZBA granted their variance, therefore, it was not applicable for the Board to address.
The Chairman continued with waiver #2, the requirement being that “Use of abutting properties shall be identified with approximate location of the structures thereon including access roads.” He noted that the applicant’s justification for the waiver as noted on the submission stated that “AT&T’s proposed facility would be located on 150+/- acre parcel in the “R-A” District and given the size of the 150 acre property compared to the 2,500 s.f. fenced compound, the plans submitted were sufficient to evaluate the merits of its proposal and strict compliance with this provision would result in an identifiable hardship to AT &T.” Mark Suennen disagreed as he had on the previous application, noting that items should be identified as residences,
commercial, etc.
Mark Suennen MOVED to deny the waiver requested for relief to Site Plan Regulations 2.1(G) for use of abutting property identification with approximate location of structures thereon including access roads. Peter Hogan seconded the motion. A vote was taken. Christine Quirk-NAY, Peter Hogan-NAY, Dean Mehlhorn-NAY, Mark Suennen-AYE. The motion FAILED.
Peter Hogan MOVED to grant the waiver requested for relief to Site Plan Regulations 2.1(G) for use of abutting property identification with approximate location of structures thereon including access roads. Christine Quirk seconded the motion. A vote was taken. Christine Quirk-AYE, Peter Hogan-AYE, Dean Mehlhorn-AYE, Mark Suennen-NAY. The motion PASSED.
The Chairman stated that the next waiver request was to the requirement of “Detailed maps showing all of the carrier’s current externally visible tower and monopole locations in the state within a twenty mile radius, both active and inactive.” He noted that the applicant’s justification for the waiver as noted on the submission stated that “AT&T has included an RF report which includes a composite coverage map of all existing AT&T facilities within the Town of New Boston and those within seven miles of the borders of the Town. As demonstrated by the RF report, AT&T needs the proposed Facility to adequately address a significant coverage area. AT&T and requests a limited waiver from this requirement, to the extent it requires detailed maps showing
all of AT&T’s facilities outside of New Boston and outside 7 miles from the New Boston town lines but “within a twenty mile radius both active and inactive.” This information is not germane to evaluating the merits of the proposed Facility and it will result in an identifiable hardship to AT&T to produce it.” Mark Suennen agreed with this justification and stated that he would accept the 7 miles as a good faith effort. Peter Hogan noted that since the lot for this application was smaller maybe the requirement was more appropriate. Christine Quirk noted that the abuuting land was forest land. James Lombardi, Esq., noted that the location was more remote that the previous application’s.
Mark Suennen MOVED to grant the waiver requested for detailed maps showing all of the carrier’s current externally visible tower and monopole locations in the state within a twenty mile radius, both active and inactive in favor of the information submitted within a 7 mile radius. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman read the fourth waiver request for the requirement of “Site descriptions for each of the above locations showing the antenna height and diameter and all externally visible structures.”
Mark Suennen MOVED to grant the waiver requested for Site Plan Regulations section 3.4-site descriptions for each of the above locations showing the antenna height and diameter and all externally visible structures. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman read the fifth waiver request for “Physical features on the site and within 300 feet of the site.” He noted that the applicant’s justification for the waiver as noted on the submission stated that “The plans submitted contain the relevant physical features on the site proximate to the proposed Facility. To the extent additional details are required on the 150 acre site of properties within 300’ of the site, AT&T requests a waiver of this provision. Strict compliance with this provision will result in an identifiable hardship to AT&T.” Mark Suennen had the same comment as for the previous hearing and recommended that a definition of “site” could be: the physical complex and driveway, in which case the
requirement was not fulfilled. The Board agreed.
Mark Suennen MOVED to deny the waiver requested for Site Plan Regulations section 3.5 (11), Physical features on the site and within 300 feet of the site, noting that the applicant should produce a plan showing the physical site as defined this evening by the Board. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman read the sixth waiver requested for the requirement of “Soil information based on the local soil survey.” He noted that the applicant’s justification for the waiver as noted on the submission stated that “AT&T believes this application letter, the materials submitted with the application, and testimony to be provided at the public hearing for the proposed Facility should be sufficient for the board to make its determination. Strict compliance with this provision will result in an identifiable hardship to AT&T.” The Chairman stated that the applicant should reference the soil maps and note the soil types on the plan. The Board agreed.
Mark Suennen MOVED to deny the waiver requested for Site Plan Regulation section 3.5 (12), Soil information based on the local soil survey, noting that the applicant should reference the Hillsborough County Soils Map Classification and note the soil types on the plan. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman read the seventh waiver requested for the requirement to note “All natural features, including streams, ponds, wetlands, etc.” He noted that the applicant’s justification read: “The plans submitted contain the relevant natural features of the property proximate to the proposed Facility. To the extent additional details are required concerning the natural features of the 150 acre property, AT& T requests a waiver of this provision. Strict compliance with this provision will result in an identifiable hardship to AT&T.” The Chairman suggested that, as with the previous hearing, the applicant could add natural features within 300’ of the site as designated for physical features. The Board agreed.
Mark Suennen MOVED to deny the waiver request for Site Plan Regulations section 3.5 (13), All natural features, including streams, ponds, wetlands, etc., such that the applicant
will submit notation of these items within the 300’ range as they would already be doing so for physical features per Site Plan Regulation section 3.5 (11). Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman read the eighth waiver requested for the requirement of “Existing buildings and structures within five hundred feet of the site.” He noted that the applicant’s justification read: “AT&T believes the application letter, the materials submitted with the application, and testimony to be provided at the public hearing for the proposed Facility should be sufficient for the Board to make its determination. Strict compliance with this provision will result in an identifiable hardship to AT&T.” Mark Suennen stated that the previous denials of other waivers would supply information needed here. The Board agreed.
Mark Suennen MOVED to grant the request for the waiver to Site Plan Regulation, section 3.5 (16), Existing buildings and structures within five hundred feet of the site, as previous denials of other waivers would supply information needed within 300’. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman read the ninth waiver requested which was to Site Plan Regulations section 3.5 (22) “Existing and proposed methods of handling stormwater runoff, and the direction of the flow indicated by arrows.” He noted that the applicant’s justification read: “The requirement is not applicable as site development for the proposed Facility will not materially increase the impervious areas of the 150 acre property. AT&T requests a waiver of this provision.” Peter Hogan thought this requirement should be fulfilled so that this information was provided as the outflow would be going to a more heavily traveled road. The Board agreed.
Mark Suennen MOVED to deny the waiver requested to Site Plan Regulations section 3.5 (22), Existing and proposed methods of handling stormwater runoff, and the direction of the flow indicated by arrows. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman read the tenth waiver requested for the requirement of: “Sizes and locations of all stormwater drain lines, catch basins, drywells, drainage ditches, retention basins and culverts.” He noted that the applicant’s justification read: “The plans submitted satisfy this requirement is not applicable, as site development for the proposed Facility will not materially increase stormwater flow. AT&T requests a waiver of this provision.” The Chairman stated that there were no ditchlines or catch basins of any consequence on this site. Christine
Quirk added that the site was flatter than the site for the previous application. The Board agreed.
Mark Suennen MOVED to grant the waiver requested for Site Plan Regulation section 3.5 (23), Sizes and locations of all stormwater drain lines, catch basins, drywells,
drainage ditches, retention basins and culverts. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
James Lombardi, Esq., asked if the information required for the ninth waiver (to show existing and proposed methods of handling stormwater runoff) was still necessary with the tenth waiver granted. Mark Suenned replied that the information required based on the denial of the ninth waiver was a quantifiable item. The Chairman asked the length and grade of the proposed driveway. James Lombardi, Esq., replied that it was approximately 1,500’ and the grades were up and down. The Chairman noted that if the site modification increased runoff the Town would need that clarified. James Lombardi, Esq., stated that sheet A03 noted no significant drainage swales or drainage ditches to be required. Mark Suennen replied that the most recent plans the Board had reviewed did not have such a
note. The Chairman stated that he did not believe this statement anyway as on the site walk it was noticed that the slope was towards the road, therefore, at some point flows would still go to the road. James Lombardi, Esq., stated that the regulations called for quantities versus methods and in this case the argument had been the amount of flow. He noted that the flow amount was now not required as AT&T stated the values would not change. The Chairman replied that this may be the case, however, the Board would like to see the directional flow of where any runoff would go. Mark Suennen stated that he may have misspoken when he said “quantifiable”. He added that the plans did not show the direction of the flow and the Board would want to make the determination that existing methods could handle proposed drainage.
The Chairman read the eleventh waiver requested for the requirement of: “Colors of the proposed personal wireless service facility represented by a color board showing actual colors proposed for all equipment. Also include a picture of similar equipment.” He noted that the applicant’s justification read: “AT&T believes the application letter, the materials submitted with the application, and testimony to be provided at the public hearing for the proposed Facility should be sufficient for the Board to make its determination. AT&T hereby requests a waiver of this provision concerning the Color Board.” The Board agreed with this justification.
Mark Suennen MOVED to grant the waiver requested to Site Plan Regulation section 3.7 (C), Colors of the proposed personal wireless service facility represented by a color board showing actual colors proposed for all equipment. Also include a picture of similar equipment. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman read the twelfth waiver requested for the requirement stating: “A statement shall be provided listing the existing and maximum future potential
measurements of noise from the proposed personal wireless service facility, measured in decibels Ldn (logarithmic scale, accounting for greater sensitivity at night). The statement shall be certified and signed by an acoustical engineer, stating that the stated noise measurements are accurate and meet the Noise Ordinance (if any) of the Town of New
Boston. The statement shall include the following: A. Existing or ambient: the measurement of existing noise. B. Existing plus the proposed personal wireless service facility: maximum estimate of noise from the proposed personal wireless service facility plus the existing noise environment. C. Existing plus the proposed personal wireless service facility plus cumulative: maximum estimate of noise from the proposed personal wireless service facility plus the maximum estimate of noise from the total addition of co-located facilities plus the existing noise environment.” He noted that the applicant’s justification read: “The proposed Facility is remotely sited on a large 150+/- acre parcel, and buffered from view by existing trees and proposed vegetation. Any noise
from the HVAC for the equipment shelter or the back-up emergency generator will be attenuated by distance, topography and vegetation. AT &T requests a waiver of this provision, as strict compliance with this provision will result in an identifiable hardship to AT&T.”
Mark Suennen MOVED to grant the waiver requested to Site Plan Regulation section 3.8, to provide a list the existing and maximum future potential measurements of noise from the proposed personal wireless service facility, measured in decibels Ldn (logarithmic scale, accounting for greater sensitivity at night) per the aforementioned specifications. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman read the thirteenth waiver requested for the requirement: “Site Lines and Balloon/Crane Test-Lines representing the sight line showing the viewpoint (the point from which the view is taken) and the visible point (the point being viewed) as described below: 1. Existing (before condition) photographs. Each sight line shall be illustrated by four inch by six inch or larger color photographs of what can be currently seen from any public road or residential building identified above. 2. Balloon or Crane Test. Within fourteen (14) days of acceptance of the site plan application by the planning board, the applicant shall arrange for a balloon or crane test at the proposed site to illustrate the height of the proposed facility. The date, time and location of this test shall be
advertised in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town at least (10) days prior to the test, and the balloon or crane must be left in place for a minimum of two (2) days or forty-eight (48) hours. 3. Proposed (after condition) photographs. Each of the existing condition photographs shall have the proposed facility superimposed on it to show what will be seen from the public roads and residences when the facility is constructed.” He noted that this waiver no longer applied as the balloon test had already been performed. Mark Suennen added
that the “2 day or 48 hour” stipulation had been fulfilled even though the balloon was taken down in the evening as there would have been now way to view it after dark.
Mark Suennen MOVED to grant the waiver requested to Site plan Regulation section 3.12 (A), Site Lines and Balloon/Crane Test, as it had already been performed and based on good faith daylight testing for two consecutive days. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman read the fourteenth waiver requested for the requirement: “Elevations-Siting elevations, or views at-grade from north, south, east and west for a one hundred (100) foot radius around the proposed facility, plus from all existing public and private roads that serve the subject property. Elevations shall be at one-quarter inch equals one foot (1/4” = 1’) or one-eight inch equals one foot (1/8” = 1’) scale and show the following: 1. Antennas, mounts, materials used to reduce visual impact, and equipment shelters(s), with total elevation dimensions and AGL of the highest point. 2. Security barrier. If the security barrier will block views of the facility, the barrier drawing shall be cut away to show the view behind the barrier. 3. Any and all structures of the
property. 4. Existing trees and shrubs at current height and proposed trees and shrubs at proposed height at time of installation, with approximate elevations dimensioned. 5. Grade changes, or cuts and fills, to be shown as original grade and new grade line, with two-foot contours above mean sea level.” He noted that the applicant’s justification read: “AT&T believes the application letter, the plans and other materials submitted with the application, and testimony to be provided at the public hearing for the proposed Facility should be sufficient for the Board to make its determination. To the extent this provision requires more detailed information, AT&T requests a waiver of this provision. Strict compliance with this provision will result in an identifiable hardship to AT&T.”
Mark Suennen MOVED to grant the waiver requested to Site plan Regulation section 3.12 (B), Elevations-Siting elevations, or views at-grade from north, south, east and west for a one hundred (100) foot radius around the proposed facility, plus from all existing public and private roads that serve the subject property (specs noted further above). Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman read the fifteenth waiver requested, for the requirement of: “Storm drainage, erosion and sedimentation control measures, and snow storage- 4.5 Storm drainage of the site shall be designed for a 50 year flood and if an existing drainage system to which the site drainage system will be connected is inadequate, provisions shall be made for retention and gradual release of storm water in order to meet the 50 year flood demand. 4.6 Provisions shall be made for acceptable erosion and sedimentation control measures, per the Stormwater Management and Sediment and Erosion Control Regulations contained in the Town of New Boston Subdivision Regulations, (Amended 6/25/02 and 8/10/04.) 4.7 Provisions shall be made for snow storage during winter months.”
He noted that the applicants justification read: “These sections are not applicable, as the proposed, unmanned facility will not materially increase storm drainage, not materially increase erosion and sedimentation, and not require snow removal during the winter months. Strict compliance with this provision will result in an identifiable hardship to AT&T.” The same rationale was true here as for the previous hearing where the applicant had no plans to plow the access to the facility and that in heavy snow, snowmobiles would be used to access the facility for maintenance checks, etc. The Chairman stated that he would prefer to wait until the results of the information that was needed on the plan based on the Board’s denial of the ninth and tenth waivers before making a decision. The
Board agreed.
The Chairman read the sixteenth waiver requested for the requirement: “Base Flood Elevation-The applicant shall include Base Flood Elevation (BFE) data for all proposals for development greater than 50 lots or 5 acres.” He noted that the applicant’s justification read: “While the lot exceeds 5 acres, the disturbed area will be a small fraction of that area. Strict compliance with this provision will result in an identifiable hardship to AT&T.” Mark Suennen noted that based on how the Board had defined “site” he did not think it met the five acre requirement. The Board agreed.
Mark Suennen MOVED to grant the waiver requested for the requirement of Base Flood Elevation per Site Plan Regulations section 4.16(A). Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that an outstanding issue for this item that remained was the Lorden right-of-way as it was felt that if the applicant did not achieve this access then they did not have an application. He suggested as the Coordinator had previously that the applicant review the checklists once again and have any new submittals into the Planning Department by May 19, 2009, so that it could, procedurally, be reviewed by the next meeting date which would likely be May 26, 2009.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn the application of Thomas Lorden (Owner), Anderson and Krieger, LLP, for New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T) (Applicant), Major Site Plan, Personal Wireless Service Facility, Location: Old Coach Road, Tax Map/Lot #8/132, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to May 26, 2009, at 9:00 p.m. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
James Lombardi, Esq., again inquired about the RF report signoff and asked if Anderson & Krieger, LLP, would receive correspondence from the Board as to who signed such letters historically. The Coordinator replied that they would email Anderson & Krieger, LLP, regarding how previous RF reports were handled.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
1. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for David A. & Ellen J. McGlauflin, Tax Map/Lot #15/10, Old Chestnut Hill Road and Mason Drive, by the Planning Board Chairman and Secretary.
The Board determined that as the Secretary was not present, nor the Vice Chairman to sign in his absence, they would delay this item until the next meeting.
2. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Elizabeth R. Aksten, Tax Map/Lot #6/64, Pine & Thornton Roads, by the Planning board Chairman and Secretary.
The Board determined that as the Secretary was not present, nor the Vice Chairman to sign in his absence, they would delay this item until the next meeting.
3. Driveway Permit application for Elizabeth Aksten, Pine Road, Tax Map/Lot #4/64-1, for the Board’s action.
Peter Hogan MOVED to approve Driveway Permit Application #09-01 for a proposed driveway. The driveway intersection with the road shall be joined by curves of ten foot (10') radii minimum. The driveway shall intersect with the road at an angle of 60 - 90 degrees. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
5. A copy of a letter received April 17, 2009, from Kevin M. Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, New Boston Planning Coordinator, re: Olde Colony (Susan Road-Field Observations) was distributed for the Board’s information.
6. A copy of a letter received April 17, 2009, from Kevin Leonard, PE, Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, New Boston Planning Coordinator, re; Highland Hills (Popple/Swanson)- Field Observations, was distributed for the Board’s information.
Peter Hogan asked why the road was now cracking if the engineer billed to watch it be built. The Coordinator noted that this was only the third road in Town to have a maintenance bond and added that they had probably never looked at the previous ones so she could not say what had happened. Dean Mehlhorn thought that compaction test must have been taken and documentation kept on the type of gravel used. The Chairman asked that the Board do drive-bys of Highland Hills and asked that this item be posted on the next meeting agenda for further discussion. He also asked that those Board members not present this evening be notified of this by email.
7. A copy of a memorandum dated April 22, 2009, to Stuart Lewin, Chairman and Planning Board Members, from Nic Strong, Planning Board Coordinator, re: FEMA Flood Insurance Study and Flood Insurance Rate Maps, was distributed for the Board’s information.
8. The minutes of April 14, 2009, were distributed by email for approval at the meeting of May 12, 2009, with or without changes.
The Chairman wished to discuss the possibility of meeting only on the fourth Tuesday of the month for July and August of 2009. Mark Suennen asked if the Board knew what application load was pending for the summer. The Chairman replied that they did not which was why he felt something could be posted on the Town website and on agendas from now on so that people could plan accordingly. The Board agreed.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn at 10:20 p.m. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted, Minutes Approved:
Suzanne O'Brien
Recording Clerk
| 
