NEWTON PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING
March 23, 2010
1. Call to Order:
Chairperson Ann Miles called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. In attendance were: Chairperson Ann Miles; Vice Chairman Jim Doggett; Planning Board members Barbara White and Kim Vaillant; and Alternate Rick Milner. Minutes were transcribed by Administrative Assistant Lisa Babcock.
Also in attendance: Circuit Rider Planner Brian Groth, Police Chief Streeter, Chairman McCarthy and Road Agent Mike Pivero.
2. Planning Board - Election of Officers:
Vaillant moved to elect Jim Doggett as Chairman and Barbara White as Vice Chairperson of the Planning Board. Second by White. Motion carried unanimously.
Miles stepped down and Doggett assumed the chair.
Doggett appointed Milner to stand in for Gibbs.
3. Minutes:
Vaillant moved to approve the minutes of 2/23/2010 as written. Second by Milner. Motion carried unanimously.
4. Manifests:
No manifests were presented.
5. Outgoing Correspondence: Doggett reviewed the outgoing correspondence and mentioned the OEP Planning & Zoning Conference scheduled for May 8th. Any member wishing to attend the conference should contact the secretary.
6. Metro PCS Massachusetts, LLC of Chelmsford, MA requests a public hearing for a minor site plan for co-location of a telecommunications antenna on an existing monopole at 85 South Main Street. The property is referenced as Tax Map 13, Block 2, Lot 24T.
Doggett opened the public hearing for a minor site plan Metro PCS.
Kate Rugman and Ray Fournier were in attendance to represent Metro PCS. Police Chief Larry Streeter was also in attendance to discuss this issue.
Doggett read the list of abutters. No abutters were present.
Ms. Rugman, Zoning Manager for Metro PCS addressed the board. Ms. Rugman explained that Metro PCS is an FCC licensed PCS carrier dealing mainly in the pre-paid market.
Metro is proposing to co-locate 6 panel antennas at 120 feet on the existing monopole at 85 South Main Street. She explained that there are 3 co-locators currently – AT&T (at 150'), Nextel (at 140') and Verizon (at 130'). Metro PCS' ancillary equipment (cabinets) will also be located within the existing fenced in compound.
Ms. Rugman explained the need for the supplemental packet that she submitted on the day of the meeting. She said that Metro had submitted an application for a minor site plan but also needed to apply for a conditional use permit because Metro is proposing full array antennas and not flush-mounted antennas.
In the original 2003 approval for the tower, one of the conditions states "all proposed co-location carriers should be required to use flush-mounted antenna…".
She said that two of the other co-locators also used full array antennas. Ms. Rugman explained that in their application Metro PCS had asked for a waiver from that condition but later learned that that was not the correct approach.
Ms. Rugman revoked Metro PCS' request for the waiver requiring flush-mounted antennas.
Groth said that in his initial review he recommended that the board deny the application because Metro requested a waiver from a condition of the original approval. The Board cannot grant such a waiver. After this initial review, Groth reviewed the application submitted by Verizon in 2007. Verizon also applied for a conditional use permit to install the full array antenna. He recommended that Metro use the same approach as Verizon had.
White referred to Groth's review letter of 3/19/2010 where it states "The tower and equipment buildings do not comply with the town's setback requirements…"
Groth explained that he thought that in 2003, AT&T might have agreed on flush mounted antennas as a tradeoff for a waiver on the setbacks. He said that the equipment in this application has a 38.5 foot setback where only 25 feet is required.
Miles said she didn't think that the application had originally been presented to the board as a tower for many uses. She was concerned about the clutter at the base of the tower with all of the different providers. She asked who is in charge of what goes on at the site and who monitors it.
Ms. Rugman said Metro PCS is only adding 4 cabinets on a 10' x 16' area within the existing compound. They will not be adding any propane tanks or other equipment. The tower itself is managed by Global Tower Partners (the company that owns the tower). She said that typically towers are approved for multiple carriers to avoid having to build additional towers. In addition, the zoning ordinance requires carriers to co-locate on existing towers whenever possible.
Vaillant moved to grant a conditional approval for the co-location. Second by White. Doggett asked if there was any further discussion. Chief Streeter addressed the Board.
Chief Streeter said that the tower was originally approved on February 11, 2003. He said the tower was proposed by AT&T in December of 2002 and AT&T's representative Attorney Hobbs stated at the time that there would be a site on the tower reserved for a public safety antenna for the town of Newton. However when the conditional approval was drawn up, there was nothing binding in the document that held AT&T to allot a repeater site to the town of Newton.
Chief Streeter asked what the relationship is between Metro PCS and the tower owner, GTP and whether after Metro installs its antennas will there still be room for a repeater site for the town above the tree line.
He stated that during two years of significant power outages and severe weather the police department had to operate essentially without radio communications.
Vaillant asked for clarification on the term "repeater site". Chief Streeter explained that signals don't go from radio to radio; messages go from the sending radio to the repeater site then to the receiving radio. Some equipment will have to be installed on the tower and in the compound for the repeater.
Ms. Rugman said that Metro PCS is simply a tenant on the tower. Metro PCS cannot make any commitment on behalf of the tower owner. Ms. Rugman requested a continuance. Chief Streeter agreed that a continuance would give his technician time to discuss this with GTP.
Vaillant withdrew her motion.
Miles moved to continue the public hearing for co-location for Metro PCS to April 13th. Second by Vaillant. Motion carried unanimously.
Chief Streeter and Mike Pivero departed.
7. Town of Newton, NH public hearing to review a proposed addition to the Newton Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Village District Zoning.
Doggett opened the public hearing for a proposed Village District Zoning Ordinance.
He explained to the audience that the board will be working on the ordinance in preparation for the 2011 Town Meeting. He then asked for board input on the Village District Zoning draft.
Milner asked if farming (2.b) would be an appropriate use in a mixed zone. Doggett said yes, one idea would be to farm the back lot and have a produce stand in front.
Resident Eileen Patterson asked what areas would be included in the village district zones. Miles said the proposed zones include portions of North and South Main Streets around the town hall, Newton Junction and the area around Rowe's Corner.
Ms. Patterson had concerns about a village district zone bringing increased traffic into South Main Street. She said there are already a number of large trucks using the road beginning in the early morning and continuing throughout the day. She was also concerned about speeding vehicles and asked if a traffic study will be done. She felt that adding services (such as restaurants) will increase truck traffic in the area because of the need for deliveries. She liked the idea of preserving historical buildings but said that she doesn't have the need for added services.
Doggett agreed that a traffic study would have to be done. He also stated that if the people living within the proposed areas are against the village district idea, the board will not go forward in those areas. He added that Kingston was able to get the state to reduce the speed limit on roads through their village center and Newton may be able to employ that strategy as well.
Ms. Patterson asked if signage would be regulated in the village district. She also recommended adding street lights for safety. Doggett said signage is already covered by the zoning ordinance.
Resident Sandy Estabrook wanted to know specifically what areas will fall into the village district. Doggett said the board wants input on that and the areas are not defined yet.
Resident Sue Woulfe said she lives on North Main Street and would like to see the district extend up that way to help preserve old homes.
Resident Robert Woulfe expressed concern about traffic, speeding and accidents in the Rowe's Corner area. He felt the roads in that area are too narrow to accommodate additional businesses.
Ms. Estabrook questioned section 3.j which recommends a land use mix of 40% retail, 40% offices and 20% residential. She felt there should be more residential. She also asked for clarification on section 3.d which allows the first floor area of a building to be up to 6500 sf. Doggett said 6500 sf. precludes big box stores from moving in but allows for larger structures such as barns.
Vaillant asked about the tax impact. She said some residents are concerned that their taxes will increase. She also said some residents are not interested in bringing additional services into the town and would rather keep the small town feel.
Miles said taxes may go up or down. She said that there may be a way to provide incentives for those providing services so their taxes could go down. She also added that some of the other goals of the village district are to make the areas more walk-able, increase sustainability and build a social network.
Mr. Woulfe asked if the board considered whether the areas have an adequate water supply to support additional businesses. He said he has a great deal of difficulty with his water supply already.
Doggett said that water supply is certainly an issue that must be considered when determining what areas will be included in the districts. He also said that the town would be encouraging small businesses (as opposed to large businesses that require more resources).
Doggett said that as for tax increases, if a person chooses not to do any improvements to his property, his taxes would not go up. However if someone has a garage and turns it into a retail shop, that person's taxes will increase. He said that property is re-assessed every 10 years but also when building permits are pulled.
Ms. Estabrook questioned section 3.e which does not permit multi-unit dwellings and retail space in the same building. Groth said the board may want to strike this section, it discourages mixed use.
Trisha McCarthy questioned the 2 acre minimum lot size. Doggett said that would only apply to newly created lots. Ms. McCarthy said the project may help the Safe Routes to School Initiative that the town has been working on.
Miles pointed out that the selectmen must establish a water authority in town to protect water resources.
White moved to continue the public hearing for the proposed Village District Zoning Ordinance to April 13th, 2010.
8. Other Board Business and Correspondence:
a. Drainage Easement – Puzzle Lane lot 27-1: The board reviewed the draft of a drainage easement for Puzzle Lane lot 27-1 which grants an easement to the town of Newton for grading and drainage purposes.
The board determined that the language was incorrect and should not grant an easement to the town. The drainage structures for lot 27-1 are located on the separate lot, 27-B, therefore, an easement needs to be granted from lot 27-B to lot 27-1 for maintenance of the drainage structures.
The Board directed the secretary to send a letter to the property owner, Coleman McDonough explaining the error.
b. Letters from KV Partners 3/1/2010 and 3/10/2010 re: 27-1 Revised Site Plan: The board reviewed the letters in which the town's engineer indicated that the proposed building expansion extended first into the 50' wetland setback and then upon a second revision extended into the 75' setback from the street. Both proposals violate the zoning ordinances. Also in the second revision, the parking lot extends into the Grading and Drainage Easement which would require the easement to be revised.
The Board directed the secretary to send a letter to the property owner, Coleman McDonough stating that the building cannot be expanded as proposed for the reasons indicated in items #1 & #2 in the letter from KV Partners dated 3/10/2010.
c. Letter From R. O'Connell re: Sargent Woods: The Board reviewed a letter from R. O'Connell dated 2/21/2010 requesting information regarding the Sargent Woods development. The board directed the secretary to send a letter to Mr. O'Connell answering his questions.
The board continued to discuss the water franchise at Sargent Woods. Miles said that Mr. McDonough (who owns an abutting property) had mentioned in a previous meeting that he had discussed obtaining water from the Sargent Woods franchise area. Ms. McCarthy said the franchise area encompasses only the Sargent Woods property and the removal of water to other sites is prohibited.
The board directed the secretary to obtain copies of the PUC correspondence regarding the franchise area and the rules that apply to it and to send a memo to the Board of Selectmen asking them to inform Lewis Builders that water cannot be directed off the site.
d. Sarah's Way Invoice: The board reviewed a letter from Ann Miles to the Rockingham Planning Commission dated 2/25/2010 and a letter from Brian Groth to Miles and the Planning Board dated 3/5/2010. Both letters concern RPC invoice # 4738 for the Sarah's Way 4-lot subdivision.
Vaillant said she was surprised that Miles had sent the letter to RPC because of her position as chairperson. She said that even thought Miles had not used the title when signing the letter, her position as chair carried some weight.
She said it was concerning because of the time the board spent reviewing the project and trying to make sure they did the right thing. She said the board wanted to make sure there was always integrity within the board. She said she would like to have legal advice on the matter. She also expressed concern that RPC had been asked to itemize the bill and that research had been done on the bill without going to the board first. If a developer has a problem with a bill, the developer should send a complaint to the board.
Vaillant said the board discussed the bill at length at a previous meeting and determined that the charges were accurate because of the amount of time spent on reviewing the project.
She also questioned the Technical Review Committee and said that the TRC should be dissolved.
Milner said the board had already determined that the charges were fair and proper. He said the board needs to discuss the issue as a board.
White clarified that the true issue is not that the charges were questioned; but that the point had not been brought up to the board and the board didn't request the review of the charges. Vaillant agreed to this description.
Doggett said that if a TRC meeting is needed in the future all board members will be notified via e-mail. He also agreed that if a developer has a question about a bill it should be brought before the board.
Miles said she felt the two issues (TRC and the RPC bill) are two separate issues and should be discussed separately. She said that she had not been allowed to bring the issue of the bill before the board. She said she was told to write a letter about the bill, therefore she sent a letter to RPC and had intended to come before the board once she had received a response. She said that any developer could contact the secretary and ask her to do research on billing. Miles also stated that other invoices, such as those from KV Partners are itemized for the developer.
Vaillant again reiterated that she was uncomfortable with the situation. Doggett said the board needs to approve a procedure for when a developer questions a bill in the future.
Miles asked what the current procedures are for handling complaints about bills. The secretary said there are no formal written procedures and there have only been a handful of complaints about bills. Mr. Fitzgerald had approached the board recently by writing a letter and attending a meeting. Previously Mr. McDonough had questioned a bill from the engineer, Mr. Vignale reviewed the invoice and noted an error in the number of hours billed and made the correction.
Doggett said when he had told Miles to send a letter refuting the bill, he had meant for her to send a letter to the board, not directly to RPC. Miles said she was giving RPC the opportunity to respond. If the bill stands, then she will send a letter to the planning board. Doggett said that should still happen through the planning board.
Vaillant said she was concerned that Miles had not recused herself during the discussions about the bill.
White said she understands the concerns but for this particular item it seems like a moot point. Although the letter should have come to the board it went to RPC and they responded and gave detailed information about the bill. If the developer is still upset with the amount of the bill, the developer should send a letter to the board. She wasn't sure there was anything more the board could do though, since RPC said the bill was correct.
Milner said he thought the way the bill was questioned was done incorrectly but that there had not been any undue influences involved.
Miles said going forward there should be estimates of how many hours the review for each project will take.
Doggett said the board should look at and renew their approval of the board's policies and procedures annually.
e. Grant Writer to Visit: Grant Writer Mike Firestone will be in Newton on March 29th at 1:00 pm and is willing to speak to board members that want to discuss grant issues.
f. Letter from Lewis Builders re: Correspondence from S. Kalman: The board reviewed a request from Lewis Builders for a copy of Attorney Kalman's letter of 2/8/2010. The board directed the secretary to send a copy of the letter to Lewis Builders.
g. DC Development Bond Release Request: The Board reviewed a letter from DC Development requesting release of the maintenance bond for Philip Way. The board noted that there is an outstanding NPREA balance for this project.
The board directed the secretary to ask counsel to give a determination as to whether the board should ask for a copy of the purchase and sale agreement when a property changes hands, if bond money can be used to pay an outstanding invoice to the town and whether the board can hold the bond on the condition that all invoices must be paid prior to its release.
h. Sargent Woods Bonding: The board reviewed a memo from the road agent dated 3/23/2010 stating that the town needs a bond on Smith Corner Road to protect and ensure that no damage is done to the road during any of the construction at Sargent Woods. The memo further states that the town engineer and road agent are working to determine an appropriate bond amount.
The board directed the secretary to send a letter to Lewis Builders requesting the $88,000 bond for the project and informing them that a bond will be required for Smith Corner Road (amount to be determined by the road agent and town engineer). In addition bonds are due by April 30th.
i. Doggett thanked the board members for voting him in as chair and thanked Miles for her two years of service as chairperson.
9. Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lisa Babcock
Administrative Assistant
Newton Planning Board
| 
