HOLLIS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES April 19, 2011 (DRAFT)

Transcription

1 HOLLIS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES (DRAFT) PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Ed Makepeace, Chairman; Doug Gagne, Vice Chairman, Doug Cleveland, Rick Hardy, Cathy Hoffman, Donna Cooksey (Alternate), David Fite (Alternate); Peter Band (Ex-Officio for Selectmen). STAFF: Mark Fougere, Planning Consultant, Virginia Mills, Assistant Planner. 1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Makepeace called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM. The chairman appointed D. Fite to vote in place of B. Beauregard. 2. ELECTION OF PLANNING BOARD OFFICERS. Chairman and Vice Chairman. Rick Hardy nominated Ed Makepeace as Chairman and Doug Gagne as Vice Chairman. Motion seconded Doug Cleveland. The motion received unanimous approval. 3. APPROVAL OF PLANNING BOARD MINUTES. Following one correction, Cathy Hoffman moved to approve the Planning Board minutes of March 15, Motion seconded by Rick Hardy and unanimously approved. 4. File #2726 New England Garden & Landscaping Center. Amend site plan to add additional use for Black Dawg Sealcoating and to construct a temporary canvas building. 254 Proctor Hill Road. ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATION/PUBLIC HEARING. D. Fite moved to accept File #2726 for consideration. Motion seconded by D. Cleveland and unanimously approved. The purpose of this plan is to amend an approved site plan to add a temporary building in the location of a previously approved permanent building. It will be built on a paved area. The building will accommodate a seal coating business along with landscape rental equipment. Temporary trailers will be removed from the site. D. Cooksey asked if the 4,032 sq. ft. size applies to only the temporary structure, or includes the long-term plan. Planner M. Fougere noted that a permanent structure was previously approved, and can still be built unless it changes. The other improvements are already in. The chairman opened the public hearing; there were no comments. D. Gagne noted that the temporary building is twice the size of the originally approved permanent building. The chairman stated that if the permanent building is twice the size of what was approved it would have to come back to the planning board. D. Gagne indicated that a note should be added to the plan indicating that the rental equipment will be inside the temporary structure. Project engineer Bob Cormier explained that the temporary canvas building will consolidate all the materials that are in the temporary trailers as well as the seal coating materials. There will no longer be a sales trailer. All other conditions from the original plan, including the hours of operation, remain the same and are noted on the plan. A discussion followed regarding how equipment will be stored and screened. Mr. Cormier proposed, and the Board agreed, to the following note: Plan Note #29: Rental equipment may be displayed in front parking area during normal business hours. After hours, smaller equipment (Bobcats, mini-excavators, hand-operated equipment) to be stored in the building. Large, driven machinery will be stored behind fencing/screening at night.

2 Page 2 P. Band asked about the life expectancy of the canvas structure. Ron Shattuck, applicant, responded that it is approximately 5 years. A discussion followed regarding the office on the adjoining lot, which utilizes a shared driveway with the subject parcel. M. Fougere explained that there are two approved site plans. If the use changes substantially, it would have to come back to the planning board. R. Hardy asked if there is enough frontage on the adjoining lot to support a driveway; B. Cormier responded that there is. There being no further discussion, D. Cleveland moved to approve File #2726, subject to submission of five (5) hard copies and addition of revised Note #29. Motion seconded by David Fite and unanimously approved. 5. File #2722 Florida Tower Partners (applicant) and James Seager (landowner) for a 103-foot wireless communications facility and associated ground equipment. Map 32 Lot Howe Lane. ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATION. (Cont. from ). The chairman reminded everyone that the FCC rules apply to this application, which is currently up for acceptance per the NH statutes. M. Fougere summarized items received, including several letters from Anderson & Krieger and Springer Law offices, as well as a report from David Maxson, who the Board has hired as a consultant. The applicant has submitted additional materials, including a revised site plan, an exposure study, landscaping details, etc. Also received is a letter from abutter Sharon Howe. The applicant submitted a proposed tree design that the Board will need to review. The applicant has stated that there are no other planned facilities in Hollis for AT&T. The balloon test was tabled, but will need to be addressed. Jon Springer, attorney for Florida Tower Partners, requested a vote on acceptance of the application so the process can move forward. The chairman asked M. Fougere if all the blanks have been filled in with respect to acceptance of the application. M. Fougere responded that the majority of items have been addressed, and Mr. Maxson s letter answers many of the Board s questions. Mr. Springer emphasized that he would like to give a presentation during the public hearing so that interested parties can hear details of the project. D. Fite asked if AT&T s needs in Hollis would change if the proposed merger between AT&T and T Mobile is concluded. Mr. Springer responded no. D. Cleveland asked if the acceptance of the application would be affected if the location of the tower subsequently changes. M. Fougere responded that a new site location would require a new plan. The chairman noted that the planning board has most, but not all, of the information that was requested, and will be receiving more information as the process proceeds. D. Cleveland moved to accept File #2722 for consideration. The motion was seconded by C. Hoffman. P. Band asked when the 65 day clock starts. The chairman responded that it starts when the application is accepted, but it is likely that extensions will be needed. J. Springer noted that the planning board also has the option, at the end of 65 days, of requesting that the Selectmen grant an extension. He added that he has never refused to grant an extension at the end of 65 days. The Board then voted unanimously to accept the application with the caveat that it is incomplete but understood that additional information will be forthcoming throughout the process. Atty. Springer noted that he believes most of the questions are answered, but he will be happy to furnish any additional information that the Board needs. He suggested scheduling the balloon test. D. Cooksey noted the need to define what more information is needed; M. Fougere responded that the Board needs Maxson s review to answer this question. Atty. Springer presented a summary of the project. The site is a 25-acre parcel located on Howe Lane with open field in the front and woods to the rear. The compound is located near the street to avoid wetlands and a drop in topo towards the rear. In addition, there is a stand of tall trees along Howe Lane that would work well with the proposed monopine. The applicant, Florida Tower Partners, has leased a 100 x100 section of land owned by James Seager where they will locate a 50 x50 compound, which is significantly smaller than the size of the compound originally

3 Page 3 proposed. The height of the facility is limited by the FAA. The access drive comes in off Howe Lane and is curved for the purpose of saving the maximum number of trees. The proposed fake tree can support two additional collocations, providing the necessary 10 of separation for each antenna array. This puts the second collocation spot at 90 and the third at 80. At this point there is not a second carrier lined up. The facility generates little traffic and needs no water, septic or lights. There is an emergency generator, which turns over about once a week. Atty. Springer referenced a document from the FAA indicating that the facility will not have to have lights. Other documents submitted include: RF Report (includes information on the Birch Hill Road and Proctor Hill Road towers). Maximum Permissible Exposure Report (proves that the applicant is compliant with the FCC regarding radio frequency emissions) Report from State Historic Preservation Office (shows project has no adverse effect) Information about Florida Tower Partners and its parent company Atty. Springer reviewed the RF maps that were submitted in February. The green is really good ; the blue is good ; yellow is not so good and the red is unreliable. The yellow and red indicates a significant gap in coverage. One of the main targeted areas of coverage is Rt AT&T RF engineer Kevin Breuer pointed out that there is already pretty decent coverage in Nashua; this tower is for use in Hollis. D. Fite asked about T. Mobile s proposed site in Nashua. K. Breuer responded that the site was looked at for a possible collocation and it did not work. He added that, regardless of the possible merger, AT&T is forbidden from looking at what T Mobile is doing. Until the merger is completed, these are two separate companies. M. Fougere noted that there were three applications in Nashua on Colburn Ave. and Broad Street, and none of them are currently active. In answer to questions from D. Gagne and others, the applicant will submit additional information regarding surrounding vegetation. David Maxson, Isotrope, thanked the Board for its confidence in him and his company. He plans to submit a rebuttal to the recent letter from AT& T s attorney. He noted that he uses the town s ordinances and regulations as a guide for what it wants. Mr. Maxson then presented a detailed review of his April 18, 2011 Technical Report on the Application by Florida Tower Partners for a Telecommunications Facility at Howe Lane, Hollis, New Hampshire. Key points are summarized below: Conditional Use Permit In Hollis, the Conditional Use Permit section of the Telecommunications Ordinance requires that the Planning Board address three findings: Use shall not be detrimental to character, environment, scenic value or general welfare of the Town. Good faith effort has been made by applicant to determine that no feasible opportunities for co-location exist. Maxson noted that the Federal definition of collocation is different than that in the Hollis ordinance, and is defined as the use of any existing structure by a wireless company, thereby presenting a larger set of opportunities, including structures that do not currently have a wireless facility (e.g., church steeple, roof of office building, etc.). The 150-day shot clock is for new towers, and the 90-day shot clock is for collocations. Proposed facility is necessary to meet the regional telecommunications needs of the applicant. This is not necessarily the same thing as a significant gap. Maxson agrees that AT&T is compliant with FCC requirements by a very large margin. Applicant is targeting two signal levels. People expect to have this technology and providers need to get closer to the customer.

4 Page 4 Coverage Maps Co-Location Crossing a threshold (e.g., blue to yellow) does not automatically mean you are losing coverage, although the quality and reliability continues to degrade as you go lower in signal strength. Wireless companies do not have to have 100% perfect coverage Buildings obstruct the signals. Wireless companies establish a target ideal threshold. Thresholds are: o Green = In building coverage o Blue = Inside vehicles o o Yellow = On street coverage Red = Unreliable (may still be able to make a connection; problematic in a vehicle) Isotrope computer model produces a more pessimistic model, and sees a deeper loss of signal strength, than AT&T model. It is a different model using a different algorithm. Per Kevin Brewer, AT&T Hollis data matches the drive data almost point to point, thereby validating the computer model. The drive data consists of thousands of signals and over 50 wavelengths. Per Maxson two ways to evaluate drive data (1) overlay drive data on map and correlate; (2) statistical analysis comparison. Maxson is qualified to evaluate drive test data, but cautioned that protocol is to validate data with drive test only in cases where conclusions differ. It is, however, helpful to have drive test data to validate the model. Makepeace would like to have applicant s drive data for Maxson to evaluate. Springer will consider the request; there may be proprietary information in the data. Gagne is more interested in the prospective coverage. Maxson states that AT&T is very optimistic about the coverage they are going to get from this installation. Isotrope is more pessimistic about the coverage that will be achieved. However, both conclusions agree that there will be substantial improvement in coverage. Improvement is linear ; Maxson is starting at a lower threshold but the conclusions are basically the same. There is no place to co-locate (per the requirements of the Hollis Ordinance) Other alternative structures or camouflage devices could be considered In some contexts the monopine will not be seen Site Plan Regulations The Board must consider the following factors: Availability of suitable existing towers or other structures Availability of alternative tower structures and alternative siting locations. With regard to existing structures there is precious little available. Isotrope modeled an existing transmission line pole at 70. This site already has a terrain advantage, and has potential of providing similar coverage. Would be helpful to have more detail on the record as to why other sites were determined to be not leasable. D. Cleveland requested information on other sites and why they were rejected. Need documentation from the FAA regarding height. (J. Springer notes that this was already submitted, but will be happy to resubmit.) Per D. Gagne There is steel tower at the top of Nartoff Road that serves as a beacon. Broad Street silo was modeled. Pine trees will probably obstruct signal. Site is not ideal.

5 Page 5 Camouflage Ordinance contemplates finding a wooded parcel; best location is in the middle of the wooded parcel. There is a wooded area on the subject parcel that is at about 250 elevation and has potential to satisfy the criteria. An option could be to have a taller tree to accommodate future co-locations. Telecommunications Act Maxson suggests consulting with counsel regarding determination of significant gap because this is something addressed in case law. PENDING ITEMS 1. The chairman requested that Mark Fougere and David Maxson prepare a letter to the applicant summarizing any additional information they need. 2. Balloon Test. Maxson suggested doing a publically-noticed balloon test as soon as possible. Springer noted that the balloon test is typically scheduled on a Saturday morning from 7 or 8 AM until noon. The applicant will produce a formal report. The applicant is limited to public ways, but individuals can take pictures from any location they want to. The Board can give the applicant specific locations from which they want pictures taken. The chairman discussed having Maxson attend the ballon test. Maxson noted that he often combines attending a balloon test with other tasks associated with the project, such as looking at alternative sites. He added that he can measure the height of the balloon using a laser range finder. The chairman stated that it would be a good idea for Maxson to be present at the balloon test. Springer noted that his crew measures the string before the balloon is sent up so there is no question of the height. Fougere noted that it would be helpful to also have a balloon test in the wooded area. Makepeace asked for consensus from board members that Maxson should attend the balloon test. D. Gagne questioned what the benefit would be since the test will be purely visual. Springer noted that he has only had 15 minutes to address the board this evening and will need to consult with his RF engineer as well as with the property owner regarding the possibility of using a second location on the site. He suggested picking a date for the balloon test. The chairman pointed out that the application has received three hours of the board s time. Jim Seager, property owner, offered to take Mr. Fougere and Mr. Gagne out to the property to show them the terrain and wetland locations. It was agreed to schedule the balloon test on May 7, subject to meeting the required notification deadlines, with May 14 as a back-up for bad weather. C. Cleveland moved to continue File #2722 to the May 17 meeting. Motion seconded by David Fite and unanimously approved. 6. AJOURNMENT. D. Fite moved to adjourn at 10:25 PM. Motion seconded by D. Cleveland and unanimously approved. Respectfully submitted, Virginia Mills

6 Page 6