TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
Minutes of March 24, 2009
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular members Peter Hogan, Douglas Hill, Don Duhaime; ex-officio Christine Quirk; and alternate Mark Suennen. 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 Ed Hunter, Building Inspector, Dave Woodbury, Selectman, Jay Marden, Willard Dodge, Mike Powell, Doug Wilkins, Esq., Dan Goulet, Shannon McManus, Reverend Woodland, Vinnie Iacozzi, Gloria Chandler and Dean Mehlhorn.
Discussion, re: Driveway Regulations
The Chairman stated that in the interest of trying to get to some type of closure from the good discussion had over previous meetings he had pulled out some of the more prevalent topics the Board had been focusing on. He noted that the first issue was one raised by Town Counsel where the Subdivision Regulations and Driveway Regulations pointed toward each other and it was questionable which superceded the other, therefore, a wording change might be necessary to resolve the conflict. Douglas Hill thought that the Subdivision Regulations operated separately for driveways within a subdivision versus an existing lot. The Chairman replied that it was more a wording/legal issue than context and seemed to require only a language adjustment. Dave Woodbury pointed out that
whatever regulation applied to a driveway had to be consistent and felt that someone with a thorough knowledge of all the regulations needed to be involved. The Chairman replied that Dave Woodbury's point was well taken.
The Chairman stated that another topic was Town Counsel's opinion that current NH law stated that driveways beyond the Town right-of-way should be referencing the NFPA requirements, as it was not clear that the Board had the authority to be doing what they were doing currently, and transfer the authority to the Fire Chief or his designee. He added that the Coordinator had some additional points to make toward this issue. The Coordinator stated that in thinking of the end result where the Board may be divided as to Town Counsel's suggestions regarding NFPA and his reaction to that, she emailed him for reassurance. She explained that the NFPA rules existed today whether the Board liked it or not and whether the Board
did anything with it or not. The Coordinator stated that according to Town Counsel the Town could have Driveway Regulations that dealt with curb cuts and the permitting process and then in the Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulations a set of standards for driveways which specified 10% grade and whatever other issues the Board wished to include regarding subdivisions. She noted that the only issue that may ever come up would be if NFPA was stricter than what the Board put in the Subdivision/Site Plan Regulations and someone in the future came forward and wanted NFPA enforced. In that case NFPA would supercede local regulation. She explained that this meant no one would be looking at existing lots except for curb cuts and that would be the Road Agent. The Coordinator added that in regard to subdivision
lots and Site Plans, therefore, an option existed to have the Board review everything during the application process, the Road Agent would continue to handle curb cuts and the Building Inspector would deal with the inspections for CO's. Douglas Hill thought this was similar to how things were before the Board took over more of the responsibility. Dave Woodbury thought the Coordinator's point was well taken where the NFPA was out there as the elephant in the room but not necessarily in the center, therefore, while the Board could approve something to a lesser standard the NFPA was still enforceable as the law of the State. He noted that while this did not do anything to the Town except in odd unusual cases, at the same time if they were to take a position somehow contrary to NFPA, they should understand that it could come up in the future, likely in the context of a disgruntled abutter, but was not likely to be a common occurrence. The Chairman felt that
currently the Town regulations were the same or stricter than the NFPA. The Coordinator replied that one outstanding item where they were not was for widths of driveways were the NFPA wanted 20' widths and the Town stated a minimum of 12'. Douglas Hill thought that the NFPA's call for 20' widths just gave towns some leeway per Town Counsel's explanation and not all driveways had to be that width. Don Duhaime asked if the 20' width per NFPA was for Commercial or Residential properties. The Building Inspector thought the interpretation was the width of the traveled way not the surface being driven upon. Douglas Hill thought the language was poorly written and was, as the Building Inspector stated, a clearance measure. The Coordinator reviewed the NFPA language and noted that 20’ was specified as “unobstructed width”.
The Chairman stated that if the Board agreed on what had been discussed thus far then the biggest functional change would be that all the things in the Driveway Regulations relating to lots or lots of record would come out and only curb cut items would remain in that language. Douglas Hill asked what the case would be, for example, for a 200' long driveway existing on a lot of record, and to what restrictions/criteria the applicant would need to adhere. The Coordinator replied that the driveway should meet NFPA standards. Douglas Hill clarified that in the example he offered the curb cut would be inspected and that was it. The Coordinator replied that was correct. She noted that the current Driveway Regulations contained a section on standards for constructions
which were all suggestions as they could not tell anyone for driveways on lots of record what to do, although in reality they saw such driveways infrequently and mostly worked with new subdivision lot driveways. The Chairman clarified that if the Board proceeded as based on the discussion then those recommendations would come out of the Driveway Regulations.
Douglas Hill asked what the case would be for subdivision driveways. The Chairman replied that the Subdivision Regulations would retain everything that they had now and the Board even though they may want to beef up some of the language. Douglas Hill asked who would be the inspecting body. The Chairman replied this was his third topic and that the Board would not act as police and judge but would designate a Town official who would be responsible for the inspections so that the Planning Board could act as the "court of appeals". He added that the Board in previous discussions had considered that the Building Inspector could look at those parts of the Subdivision/Site Plan requirements for driveways while the curb cut area would still be handled by the Road
Agent. Douglas Hill asked the Building Inspector if he was up to date on what would be involved in taking on this task. The Building Inspector replied that often times once a foundation was set that offered what the relationship was to the road and if a potential grade problem seemed to be evident he highlighted it then rather than later in the process. Douglas Hill noted that when the Board called out several issues with a driveway at the approval stage they would also require an adherence statement and an As-Built Plan and the only time things would become contentious would be if the Board missed those requirements. The Chairman noted that a topic discussed previously which needed agreement, or not, from the Board was the requirement that the driveway to a new subdivided lot be roughed in to grade before the Building Permit was issued to ensure that the house was not built and the driveway adjusted to fit the house after the fact. Douglas Hill stated
that he was against such a requirement because unless an engineer came out to shoot the grade at rough the process would be foolish and create an undue hardship to the applicant. He added that he did not think it would make any difference in the end. Don Duhaime noted that two houses built during the winter season toward the end of Bedford Road near Klondike Corner had roughed in driveways and seemed to be done well, i.e., he thought it was possible to do so. Douglas Hill clarified that all driveways were roughed in to carry equipment to the lot, however, he wondered how a roughed in driveway could be examined without an engineer shooting the grade when the grade could still change later in the process. Mark Suennen agreed with Douglas Hill that without shooting line and grade the process would mean nothing. Don Duhaime thought that a developer should be able to do so. Mark Suennen replied that if he was not licensed to do so it would mean
nothing and there would be no consequences. Don Duhaime thought the consequences would be no CO. Dave Woodbury stated that he was satisfied with not worrying about the issue. The Chairman felt that this was the general consensus of the Board and the Building Inspector would notice problems during his inspections.
The Chairman stated that his fifth topic regarded bank/slope stabilization along driveways and that now would be the time to put something into the regulations. Peter Hogan, who had just arrived to the meeting, stated that he disagreed and that the Town's regulations were fine. He noted that bark mulch was not a suitable means of stabilization and was intended to be mixed with a chemical to keep it weighted to the slope and the main intent of the mulch was to allow the grass underneath it to grow per what he had read from the State. The Chairman noted that the main issue was that, as Town Counsel, pointed out there was nothing in the regulations to say it needed to be another way when there were certified engineers saying that it was acceptable along with the Road Agent. Peter Hogan noted that the key term here was "temporary" stabilization while the Board wanted permanent stabilization per the regulations and the Board was getting caught in the wording of the few who
would try anything they could to get away with something, therefore, the Board should hold fast and say no when they had to. The Chairman asked the Coordinator if this was how the regulation was worded. The Coordinator replied that she was unsure. Peter Hogan stated that if it was not worded as such then it should be modified to say so. Douglas Hill asked the Building Inspector his opinion on the matter. The Building Inspector stated that his biggest concern would be not being able to issue a CO due to grass not growing along the banks of a driveway. Douglas Hill noted that in such cases the applicant could bond for that requirement. The Building Inspector stated that it was his understanding as far as bonding was concerned that it was relatively easy for an established company to get a bond versus the recent situation with Mr. Cabral/Inkberry driveway who did not have the funds to bond.
Douglas Hill stated that he had no issue with working out a more reasonable way giving a CO but felt that bonding was the only way to enforce permanent stabilization. Peter Hogan stated that when a driveway required stabilization it was usually based on lack of planning from the onset and then it became the emergency of the inspecting agent at the time of CO. He thought that one thing that seemed good about shifting so much of the responsibility to the Building Inspector was that he could offer a check sheet to applicants at the onset of construction so that they were aware of what they needed to do. Douglas Hill noted that there would be instances where stabilization would be difficult depending on when a house was built since New Boston was an area with a long winter season and that although he was
not in favor of doing so there had to be a way for applicants to install some measure so that when the season allowed they could grow grass. Peter Hogan felt they could get an estimate from a qualified company for the bonding amount for stabilization. Douglas Hill noted that if something was set up for the Building Inspector in the rules and regulations that he was not comfortable with then he would not enforce them the way the Board preferred, therefore, it was useless to force something upon him that he would have to live with. Peter Hogan agreed. Douglas Hill stated that he was willing to come up with another way as the Building Inspector was going to be in the position to say yeah or nay to CO's.
Dave Woodbury asked if the Board was confident that they had the authority under the Town regulations to govern bank stabilization as he thought that Town Counsel had alluded to the fact that in some cases the Board had gone past their point of authority on driveways. The Chairman replied that there was the issue of erosion and other examples of where a driveway could be lost due to improper erosion controls. The Coordinator stated that the Subdivision Regulations referenced the old Erosion Control Handbook and because the Town referenced that and nothing else, they needed to go along with what it said. She added that with the recent publication of a new handbook they should reference that version as it saved the Town having to write out every single detail for every
erosion control practice in the Town's regulations by sending the applicant to the source. The Coordinator noted that if the Town disagreed with a specific item in the handbook they needed to call that out. The Chairman clarified that the Board wanted to make sure "permanent" stabilization was written into the regulations and the other to reference the updated Erosion Control Handbook. He asked what the case would be for those homes applying for CO without stabilization. Douglas Hill felt that such instances were more likely when the builder was involved on a more personal level with the applicant, i.e., a relative versus a professional relationship. To answer the Chairman's question he stated that he was willing to go with the enforcer's opinion. Peter Hogan clarified that this was because he was unwilling to make a rule for the 1% of instances that could occur with this scenario. Douglas Hill replied that was correct. The
Coordinator thought that it would be better to have a requirement in place for security to be submitted should there be scenarios where builders were merely lax in fulfilling the requirement and then waiving on a case by case basis. Christine Quirk and Douglas Hill agreed. The Coordinator noted that the Building Inspector would be the compliance inspector and the Planning Board would be the agency that accepted the bond.
Douglas Hill asked if this could be handled by the Planning Department versus the Planning Board unless they wanted to fight the requirement. The Coordinator replied that if the Planning Department had an estimate form prepared by the Town Engineer then that would be a consideration, but without that they would not know from contractor to contractor what was a good number. The Building Inspector agreed. Mark Suennen offered that the State had average bid tabs available for seed and mulch and that this could be submitted by the applicant based on the square footage affected. Peter Hogan stated that when the Building Permit was pulled that would be a good time to confirm required items with the applicant.
The Chairman stated that the whole point of requiring a bond for stabilization with an applicant required to request a waiver if they did not want to submit such a security was that the whole Planning Board would be involved in considering the request not just one individual. He noted it was harder to sway the Board than one person. Douglas Hill thought that such cases would be few and far between, therefore, he had no issue with the waiver option. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector, noted that he was used to making a judgment call on a lot of building issues and if something comes up that an applicant doesn’t like they can appeal it to the ZBA. He stated that this didn’t happen very often but it was good to have a Board available if someone doesn’t
agree with the ruling. Peter Hogan noted to the Building Inspector that if he was comfortable being in this role then that was fine with him, however, he was concerned that he may not like being put on the spot by an applicant and noted that the Road Agent was very resistant to being in such situations. He felt that the Board offering waivers for applicants in this scenario would seem to undermine the decisions of the Building Inspector. The Building Inspector noted that what he was enforcing would be written in the rules and regulations of the Town for driveways. He stated that when he makes a decision on something involving Zoning the applicant could get a variance or appeal his decision. He saw this scenario in a similar light.
The Chairman continued with item #6 and noted that this had been brought up by Town Counsel as an issue of determining whether the driveway regulations in effect at the time of approval or the time of a driveway's construction would be applied. He noted that, in his opinion, there should be some period that allowed for grandfathering. Douglas Hill agreed. The Coordinator explained that the Subdivision and Site Plan Regulations followed State Statute for vesting of 4 years from the time of approval and she would need to check with Town Counsel as to whether this applied to driveway approvals also, given that it noted active and substantial development needed to occur on site in this period otherwise the current regulations would apply.
The Chairman stated that the last issue on his list involved whether or not the Planning Board should act as the central clearing house for the administrative end of the driveway permits, etc. Peter Hogan questioned why this should be since the Planning Board would not be the entity that answered to driveway applicants. The Chairman stated that this question had been raised at a prior meeting which was why he raised it again. The Coordinator noted that the Driveway Regulations were under the jurisdiction of the Planning Board, therefore, statutorily, the Board had no way out of being involved but could appoint designees to handle the permits for curb cuts. Douglas Hill thought that the Planning Department should act as the clearing house since they were used to
dealing with the appropriate paperwork and assuring that information for driveway sites was up to date. The Coordinator noted that going forward with this would not be much different than what the Planning Department did now with regard to paperwork and permitting.
There being time before the first scheduled hearing, the Planning Board addressed Miscellaneous Business.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF MARCH 24, 2009.
1. Approval of the minutes of February 10 and 24, 2009, distributed by email.
Mark Suennen noted on the first page of the minutes of February 10, 2009, the measure of 12" should read 12'.
Douglas Hill MOVED to approve the minutes of February 10 and 24, 2009, as amended. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Application of Appointment, Planning Board Alternate, from Dean Mehlhorn, 14 Holt Lane, for the Board's review and discussion.
Dean Mehlhorn was present for this item. Peter Hogan stated to Mr. Mehlhorn that he may like to sit in for a meeting or two to see if it was something he would be interested in and to which he felt he could commit. The Chairman noted the meeting schedule of the second and fourth Tuesday of each month. The Planning Assistant asked if a limit to the number of meetings should be decided before an appointment was considered. The Chairman thought that two meetings would be enough to have an applicant make a decision.
3. Discussion, re: revocation of subdivision plan for Right Way Builders, Inc., Tax Map/Lot #5/50 and #5/52, due to lack of completion of conditions to approval.
The Board determined that since interested parties may be in attendance later in the evening, they would delay addressing this item until then.
4. Planning Board review of revised subdivision plan for Scott and Robyn Elliot, Tucker Mill and Pine Echo Roads, Tax Map/Lot #5/5-1, 5/5-2 and 5/5-3.
The Coordinator noted that the proposed lot line had been moved over by about 40' to satisfy acreage requirements and assure contiguous dryland. Mark Suennen asked if the proposed well easement was within the property bounds. The Coordinator replied that it went over by a small amount and not as much as on the original plan. The Chairman stated that in the interest of time he and the secretary would endorse the subdivision plan at the end of the meeting.
5a. A copy of a letter dated March 2, 2009, from Northpoint Engineering, to the Planning Coordinator, re: Shaky Pond Development, LLC, cistern review comments, was distributed for the Board's information.
The Coordinator noted that the Town Engineer was still working with the Fire Wards on language for the Subdivision Regulations for cistern requirements, warranties, etc.
5b. A copy of a quotation from Michie Corporation, re: 30,000-gallon water cistern, Shaky Pond Development, was distributed for the Board's information.
6. A copy of a memorandum dated February 25, 2009, from David Preece, SNHPC, to the Planning Coordinator, re: NH Water resources Plan, Information Meeting/Listening Session for April 1, 2009, was distributed for the Board's information.
7. A copy of a memorandum dated February 25, 2009, from David Preece, SNHPC, to the Planning Coordinator, re: Groundwater Management, Public Meeting, March 26, 2009, was distributed for the Board's information.
8. Notification, re: New Boston Conservation Commission seminar, April 1, 2009, with NHDES to present an overview of the new Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act, was distributed for the Board's information.
9. Town of Goffstown Planning Board Public Hearing, March 26, 2009, re: construction of a personal wireless service facility.
10. Town of Weare Regional Notification, March 26, 2009, re: construction of a personal wireless service facility.
11. A copy of a letter dated March 19, 2009, from Ed Hunter, Building and Code Official, to Jon's Auto, 666 N. Mast Road, re: site restrictions, was distributed for the Board's information.
From the audience, the Building Inspector stated that there had been an ongoing issue with vehicles being parked in the 25' buffer that was established as part of the site plan for this property. He added that after taking some pictures of the site and forwarding three or four letters
to Jon's Auto, he had taken up the Coordinator's suggestion of informing the owners that if the issue was not resolved promptly there would be discussion on the matter at the next Planning Board meeting scheduled for April 14, 2009. The Building Inspector noted that he had driven by earlier in the day and saw that some adjustments had been made. He explained that the problem was that there was no fencing or marking for the buffer and PSNH had cleared a natural buffer that had been there previously. The Coordinator noted that this was an old site plan from the late 1980's/early 1990's. Douglas Hill clarified that the matter was likely raised by a disgruntled abutter. The Building Inspector replied that was the case.
12. A copy of a letter dated March 24, 2009, from Ed Hunter, Building and Code Official, to Steve and Patricia Henault, re: wetland crossings, was distributed for the Board's information.
13. A copy of an email dated March 10, 2009, from Stuart Lewin, re: interactive town and school meeting project, was distributed for the Board's information.
14. The minutes of March 10, 2009, were noted as having been distributed by email, for approval with or without changes at the meeting of April 14, 2009.
Mark Suennen inquired about the status of the Town Engineer's contract renewal which had been discussed several meetings prior. The Coordinator replied that the contract had been approved and renewed for one year.
At 7:50 p.m., the Board took a 10 minute break before the scheduled 8:00 p.m. hearing.
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. An interested party present was Gloria Chandler.
The Chairman stated that the applicants had requested an adjournment to April 28, 2009, based on information that was still pending for the plan which was discussed at the prior meeting.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn the application 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 and 4/62, Residential-Agricultural "R-A" District, to April 28, 2009, at 7:30 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
At 8:00 p.m. the Board took a 30 minute break since the next hearing was not scheduled until 8:30 p.m.
Informational session for the Community Church, re: building uses, Tax Map/Lot #19/23.
Present for this discussion was Mike Powell who represented the New Boston Community Church. The Chairman noted that he had worked professionally with Mike Powell in the past and stated that if the Board preferred he would recuse himself from the discussion. The Board determined that this was not necessary given that the discussion was informational only.
Mike Powell stated that the New Boston Community Church was investigating a change of use proposal for one of the buildings on their lot. He noted that the building located behind the Church (Nan's House) was a two storey residential apartment on the first floor and an occupied rental on the second to the PLC (Piscataquog Land Conservancy). Mike Powell explained that while nothing was committed the Church was investigating the possibility of vacating the upstairs and moving the PLC to the first floor of the back section of Nan’s House thus eliminating the apartment rental usage. He noted that this proposal was not for expansion reasons but would allow for more office/display space. Mike Powell further noted that the current plan was approved
for two onsite parking spaces for the residential use which would no longer be required if the rental space was discontinued and that parking for the PLC employees would not be an issue in the Church lot as they operated on opposite schedules. He stated that no ongoing use was planned for the upstairs portion of the building if it was vacated and the proposal would simplify the non-conforming aspect of the building. Douglas Hill clarified that the Church was considering discontinuing the apartment usage permanently. Mike Powell replied this was the case and noted that renting apartment space was not consistent with the mission of the Church versus use by the PLC which was more in line with an organization that supported the community.
Mike Powell questioned whether the progression of this proposal would require a formal application to the Planning Board or whether it could be handled administratively through the Planning Department. The Chairman replied that he felt an application would still be required, however, it should not be too involved. Peter Hogan agreed that Site Plan Review was likely required as it would be a review of the intended use, hours of operation, any changes proposed to the outside of the building, any safety issues, etc. He added that in consideration of the current rental space he would caution the Church against eliminating the currently approved rental space as it would seem that the space could support another business if that was proposed in the future.
Peter Hogan offered that this consideration was simply a proposed conversion of Nan's House to office space.
Mike Powell thanked the Board for their time.
VISTA ROAD, LLC (OWNER)
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 Douglas Wilkins, Esq., of Anderson & Krieger who represented AT &T, Shannon McManus, site contractor and Dan Goulet, radio frequency engineer. Abutters and interested parties present were Jay Marden, Willard Dodge, Vinnie Iacozzi and Dean Mehlhorn. Other abutters may have been present but did not speak at this hearing.
The Chairman noted that there was a lot of information to get through for this application and it would need to be adjourned as a result, therefore, while he realized that abutters and interested parties had comments to share it was likely that it would be more appropriate at the next scheduled hearing for the applicant so that tonight's meeting could concentrate on getting through the meat of the proposal.
Doug Wilkins, Esq., stated that the proposed site was on Wilson Hill Road on the eastern side of River Road and that the facility shown on the plan would be accessed by a proposed new 30" wide access easement with a 12' wide driveway, tree buffer and 100' X 100' leased area for a 50' X 50' compound. He added that a tree survey had been conducted with the cell tower center noted on the plan and that most of the trees were located east and southeast of the tower with a existing cleared area present, therefore, some relief would be requested by the applicant regarding the required buffer. Doug Wilkins, Esq., noted that a benefit to the project would be that there would not be more tree clearing required for the compound. The Chairman asked if the scale
of the cleared area to the west matched the scale of the driveway as a reference. Doug Wilkins, Esq., replied that was correct. He noted that abutters were noted on plan A01 as being on four sides of the site and this also showed the relationship of the pole to the lot line with the closest being 239' meeting the fall zone requirement of a 100' radius. He stated that the detail of the compound was shown on plan A04 as having a 12' wide swing gate and 6' fence with barbed wire as well as a parking area. Doug Wilkins, Esq., explained that that compound would not be manned but each carrier would check the site one or two times per month and that the proposed monopole would be a three carrier pole which was consistent with the regulations. He added that a generator was also proposed in the case of electrical outages.
Doug Wilkins, Esq., stated that proposed tree plantings were 6' white pines along the perimeter for screening of the 100' monopole with two potential co-locaters. He added that the cables would run down the pole to an equipment shelter and that an ice bridge shown in the package would prevent ice from bringing the equipment down. Doug Wilkins, Esq., noted that photo simulations had recently been submitted along with a signed statement by the land owner which confirmed that the site would support co-location.
The Chairman stated that he would like to consider the items submitted for considering the application complete which were all present.
Peter Hogan MOVED to accept the application of Vista Road, LLC (Owner) and Anderson Krieger, LLP, for New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT & T) (Applicant), Major Site Plan, Personal Wireless Service Facility, Tax Map/Lot #6/33, Residential-Agricultural "R-A" District, as complete. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that the Board's deadline for action was now May 28, 2009. He noted that the Coordinator had highlighted minor checklist corrections in her review regarding abutters' maps and that one major notation was the delineation of the flood plain which had been done with outdated maps, therefore, a new one needed to be submitted. He noted that regarding the RFR report the Town's regulations stated that they needed to be completed by a certified engineer where the applicant's was done by a health physicist. Doug Wilkins, Esq., replied that the same person did these reports for all their sites, therefore, they may request a waiver. The Chairman inquired about the requirement of a report by a structural engineer for the compound. Doug Wilkins, Esq., replied that the towers were
ordered after permits were granted but they may be able to submit something from the tower manufacturer. The Chairman stated that the regulations should be consulted. He noted that he would prefer not to see paper print copies of the photos submitted but photo quality prints instead. The Chairman stated that another big issue was the proposed access on a Class VI road and advised that the applicant approach the ZBA as this could require a release of liability and should be addressed early in the application process. The Chairman stated that the next item to address was the balloon test and site walk and he felt in consideration of the regulations that the test should be over a two day period although the balloon could be lowered overnight. He added that 10 days notice was required prior to the test. The Coordinator added that the test need to be scheduled within 14 days of acceptance also. The balloon test was then scheduled for April 18 and 19,
2009 and the site walk scheduled on April 18, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. The Coordinator stated that the notice would be in the Union Leader newspaper for April 18, 2009. A rain date was also scheduled for the following Saturday of April 25, 2009, at 9:00 a.m., so that in the case of inclement weather re-noticing would not be necessary.
Dan Goulet, a radio frequency engineer of C Squared Systems, Manchester, NH, spoke next. He stated that he had worked in this business since 1986 and began by showing the network plan for the site which illustrated on-air AT & T sites and the two proposed locations (Vista Road/AT & T and the next hearing, Lorden/AT & T). He explained that the green shaded areas were under construction, the purple, ongoing filings and then the proposed sites. The Chairman thought that the applicant was required to show other carriers’ towers and prove whether or not co-location would solve coverage issues. Dan Goulet replied that there were no other existing towers in the area on which to co-locate with the only other one already occupied by AT & T. He explained that the two-site
solution/proposal was a way to get more coverage along the areas of NH Route 13 (River Road) and in the Village area of the Town now that more funding for rural markets was available. Dan Goulet noted that the two site proposal would fill in as many of the existing coverage gaps as possible and added that not all carriers were on the same frequency bands. He stated that New Boston had a lot of terrain to overcome for frequency enabling and the tree survey offered that two thirds of the trees in the Wilson Hill site area were 65' or taller and still growing, which did not offer much of a footprint for a co-locater at 72' and 62' (10' below the 82' antennas). Dan Goulet offered the example of a site in Keene, NH, where the white pines would be greater than 125' to 130' in 20 years, therefore, the minimum tower height they came up with for New Boston was 100' (antenna would be at 97') and that would just barely meet the existing coverage gaps along NH Route
13.
Peter Hogan asked how the sites were selected. Dan Goulet replied that the ridge and hill on the Wilson Hill site with the ridge behind the tower offering a tree backdrop but without a "shadowing" from the hill. He noted that the proposed site to the south (referring to next hearing of Lorden/AT & T) had a better footprint which would mostly service the Village area but shy of going to 190' would not be able to cover the remaining gaps that would result. Dan Goulet returned to the Wilson Hill site and added that another option was to locate on the other side of the ridge, however, that would eliminate connectivity on other parts of NH Route 13. Douglas Hill asked if AT & T usually used the same co-locations. Dan Goulet replied that AT & T had a master lease agreement
with other carriers and was not in the business of leasing space and making money off their towers, but instead, would co-locate where they could. He added that some new carriers to the market such as Metro PCS and Pocket were currently locating in Connecticut and western Massachusetts and were on higher frequency bands (2130 versus AT & T's 1900). Dan Goulet stated that as far as other carriers such as t-Mobile, Sprint and Verizon they don't always know until they get to certain sites since they are not always in the same spots, but now with more rural funding it also depended on these other sites and their frequencies.
Interested party Jay Marden asked why AT & T did not consider locations on higher hills for better coverage. Dan Goulet replied that the issue in the Town was that there were so many hills that locating on one could still block coverage based on the topography and they needed a line of sight to get through tree canopies as the denser they are the more signal lost. He noted that the proposed location on Wilson Hill met 90% of their objectives with the idea of keeping mobiles at lower power and wattage and bringing stronger service to the Town.
As time was up for the hearing the Board determined a motion for the next scheduled hearing, with the Chairman once again explaining that abutters would have a chance to comment at the next hearing which would be scheduled for one hour.
Don Duhaime MOVED to adjourn the application of Vista Road, LLC (Owner) and Anderson Krieger, LLP, for New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT & T) (Applicant), Major Site Plan, Personal Wireless Service Facility, Tax Map/Lot #6/33, Residential-Agricultural "R-A" District, to April 28, 2009, at 8:00 p.m. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
THOMAS LORDEN (OWNER)
ANDERSON & KRIEGER, LLP, for New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT & T)
(APPLICANT)
Submission of Application/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 Douglas Wilkins, Esq., of Anderson & Krieger who represented AT &T, Shannon McManus, site contractor and Dan Goulet, radio frequency engineer. Abutters and interested parties present were Jay Marden, Willard Dodge, Vinnie Iacozzi and Dean Mehlhorn. Other abutters may have been present but did not speak at this hearing.
The Chairman noted as with the last hearing that there was a lot of information to get through for this application and it would need to be adjourned as a result, therefore, while he realized that abutters and interested parties had comments to share it was likely that it would be more appropriate at the next scheduled hearing for the applicant.
Doug Wilkins, Esq., stated that the proposed site was located off Old Coach Road with the abutter information noted on plan A01. He noted that there was an existing access to the site that would accommodate a 100' pole set back 100' to the south 127' to the north and 127' to the northwest that met Zoning location requirements. Doug Wilkins, Esq., stated that the tree survey conducted had yielded cover to the east, south and southwest and a side with no cover. He noted that the proposed tower would be nestled within the tree cover, therefore, no subsequent clearing would be needed for construction. Doug Wilkins, Esq., stated that plan sheet A03 showed the proposed site access which was a gravel road through Society for the Protection of NH Forests
land (SPNHF) with a substantial amount of topography. He noted that underground power was proposed in the 100' by 100' leased area for the 50' X 50' compound and a tree buffer planted with 6' to 8' white pines. Doug Wilkins, Esq., stated that a 12' swing gate was also proposed with parking for maintenance checks that would occur once or twice a month. He added that plan sheet A04 detailed the site plan of the compound with a three carrier monopole and a proposed 11.5' X 20' shelter with underground power and an emergency generator. Doug Wilkins, Esq., stated that, as with the prior hearing's application, he would check on power specs for the next meeting and make sure that actual photos, not paper print copies, were supplied. He noted that the site was not an intrusive one and added that he had submitted the original package of specs on March, 10, 2009, and another one on March 20, 2009 from the manufacturer and prints of what they felt would be
anticipated FAA requirements, although they did not think lights would be required since the tower would only be 100' in height.
Peter Hogan MOVED to accept the application of Thomas Lorden (Owner) and Anderson Krieger, LLP, for New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT & T) (Applicant), Major Site Plan, Personal Wireless Service Facility, Tax Map/lot #8/132, Residential-Agricultural "R-A" District, as complete. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it
PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that the Board's deadline for action was now May 28, 2009. He noted that, as with the prior hearing, the Coordinator had highlighted minor checklist corrections in her review regarding abutters' maps and that, again, one major notation was the delineation of the flood plain which had been done with outdated maps, therefore, a new one needed to be submitted. He noted, again, that regarding the RFR report the Town's regulations stated that they needed to be completed by a certified engineer where the applicant's was done by a health physicist. The Chairman stated that an item mentioned at the prior meeting involved an easement over the SPNHF land. Doug Wilkins, Esq., replied that that they anticipated solving the easement issue soon. The Chairman noted the fact that the
site was land locked meant that the applicant, per the RSA, would need to approach the Selectmen regarding some type of variance, therefore, they should follow up with the Planning Department for further information.
The balloon test for this site was scheduled for the same days as the previous hearing, April 18 and 19, 2009 and a site walk at 9:45 a.m. +/-. As with the prior hearing, the Chairman requested that the balloon be up by 9:00 a.m. on both days, but could be taken down at 7:00 p.m. in the evening. A rain date was also scheduled for the following Saturday of April 25, 2009, at 9:45 a.m. +/-, so that in the case of inclement weather re-noticing would not be necessary. Christine Quirk noted that in regard to meeting with the Selectmen their meeting schedule was every other Monday and the following Monday, March 30, 2009, was a non-meeting week. The Chairman noted that the applicant's inquiry to the Selectmen would need to precede any Planning Board action on the application.
The Chairman reiterated to the abutters that there would be time for comment at the next hearing which would be scheduled for one hour.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn the application of Thomas Lorden (Owner) and Anderson Krieger, LLP, for New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT & T) (Applicant), Major Site Plan, Personal Wireless Service Facility, Tax Map/lot #8/132, Residential-Agricultural "R-A" District, to April 28, 2009, at 9:00 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS, cont.
3. Discussion, re: revocation of subdivision plan for Right Way Builders, Inc., Tax Map/Lot #5/50 and #5/52, due to lack of completion of conditions to approval.
No representatives for the above noted item were present. The Coordinator noted that the most recent extension date to the approval had been March 1, 2009. Mark Suennen asked what a revocation of the subdivision plan would mean. The Coordinator replied that if the applicants wished to continue with the plan they would need to re-apply and begin the process from scratch.
The Board determined that a public hearing would be scheduled at the earliest
opportunity to revoke this subdivision plan.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn at 9:46 p.m. Don Duhaime seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted, Minutes Approved:
Suzanne O'Brien
Recording Clerk
| 
