JUNE 21 TUFTONBORO PLANNING BOARD

7:00PM Wilson Stewart, Dan Derby, Rick Friend, Joan Theve, Sue Weeks, Mike Abraham, Tony Lyon and Ted Wright were present. Vickie Kinnaman and Rob Ciandella also present.

3 Wetland approvals: Greg Jones, Robert Calhoun and C.& E. Realty Trust. 1 Wetland application: Quinby in Winter Harbor, to remove existing dock and replace with a dug in boathouse.

Tuftonboro Historical Society conditions of approval have been satisfied. Plans were signed.

Rick read letter from White Mountain Survey concerning the conditions for the Greymont subdivision. Still a couple unfinished items.

June 7^th minutes were approved with corrections.

7:30PM

# 1 White Cliff Communications. Continued from May. Ted sitting out. Rick opened the hearing by explaining that the board would be discussing, deliberating and doing the checklist. The 1^st item was a waiver request for the height, zoning ordinance 13.4.4 D. Dan moved to grant the height waiver of 130’. He felt it provided the desired coverage needed and there was not much difference between 100’ and the 130’ with coverage. Wilson 2^nd. Rick commented that if any more then the 130’ was needed, a new application would have to be submitted. Joan disagreed and felt a 90’ tower was suitable, it would serve necessary coverage. “In” vehicle coverage was the goal and at 90’ she didn’t think there was significant difference between 90’ and 130’ and that the public preferred 90’. Broadcast Signal Lab says they might be better served putting up more smaller towers. She also felt it did affect real estate values.

Sue said she had spent some time studying radio frequency maps. She always expected that there would be towers in town, thought that a 130’ tower might better serve the town and maybe only need one more. She felt at 90’ many more towers would be needed. Joan asked if they (Nextel) could not co-locate on the towers in surrounding area, why would others want to co-locate on this one. Wilson responded that because of “shadows” the other locations were not suitable and this location would be beneficial to others. He would rather see one than many in the same area. Tony felt as few towers as possible the best way. He supports the 130’. He felt the Towns goal is to minimize towers. Rick agreed with Joan with the 130’ vs. the 90’ in that there is not much difference in coverage but he would rather see one 130’ than many towers. He also noted that in one of the photo’s taken from Melvin Village towards the tower it had telephone poles, wires, a transformer, signs etc. A cell tower is 20^th century telephone pole and is an improvement in communications. Joan noted that fire and police could still use a 90’ pole. Wilson felt that this would not be injurious to the public, it’s under the sound levels, there would not be any blasting in order to put the “mat” down for the tower. Airline safety is not an issue based in the Jeppeson report, no lighting would be necessary. This would promote the good of the public. The Master Plan has Melvin Village as a revitalization area of town and you need good communication in today’s time. 130’ is the goal for suitable coverage. The applicant has done everything with the design to minimize impact in the area. There will probably not be any development in the area of the tower and that helps keep the rural character. Joan didn’t think a tower was in keeping with rural character or preserving the “look of it”. Wilson did not see that more towers would enhance anything. The landfill was a location that was mentioned at other meetings and that location has a huge view shed from many parts of town. This spot is not visible from hardly any spots except immediate neighbors and maybe from the lake. Sue felt the spot had the least impact in town, the neighbors homes are all facing the other direction, towards the mountain views. Yes, when they leave their house they view the tower. She also thought from 170’ to 130’ was a big difference. This will not stand out, if you are on the lake the Ossipee Mountains are in the background and it’s lower than Prospect Hill.

Tony felt they had proved there is a gap and this complies with the Tele. Communications Act and effective prohibition. Joan reiterated that she was not opposed to the tower just the height. Question was asked if Melvin Village Church steeple had been looked at. Mr. Chianis responded that by his observations it was too low.

Vote; Motion to grant waiver for height to 130’. 6 in favor. Joan opposed.

Waiver requested for 5.3.3F for storm drainage. Dan moved to grant the waiver as requested. Sue 2^nd. Sue felt all drainage would be on the lot it’s built on and there would be no issues. The tower pad is a small footprint. There are no wetlands there. It would be only surface runoff. Tony commented that he had talked to the road agent concerning the roadway and road agent did not anticipate any problems. Driveway will be gravel. Wilson felt the worst drainage problem would be during construction with minimum impact. It will be regraded , a gravel driveway that’s not cut into. Vote; To grant waiver. All in favor.

Waiver request for 4.3.3.1, landscape buffer. Dan moved to waive the request providing there be a no cut zone. Sue 2^nd. No cut zone within the building setback, 30’ from County Road. 100’ along County Rd. Board discussed if this was the time to decide on details of the landscaping criteria or when it comes up on the checklist? Decided that details would be later. Vote; To grant waiver as requested. All in favor.

13.1 Intent and Goals of Telecommunications Facilities in Tuftonboro. Tony moved to approve the application as it applies to the Towns Zoning Ordinance. Sue 2^nd.

Joan felt that the protection of protecting property values was important but there is no real data so no impact? Randy Parker, realtor, wrote that he felt there was impact. She also noted that a house in Ossipee sold with an 18% reduction in sale because of a nearby tower. It does have a negative impact on property. Sue said she did not like the first Boginni report but did put more weight on his second report with more data and his opinion was you cannot prove factual impact. The sale from Ossipee, there was no proof there was any connection. She could not put a lot of weight on either the Parker or Leavitt opinion.

Tony cited the Bow case that the court determined that there was no legal evidence that determines property values one way or another. The Henniker case was the same. Some properties just don’t sell.

Dan felt there was a negative impact on property values, he referred to all evidence presented by abutters, the site visit, local appraisers and that the Boginni report was opinion. The balloon test was not viewed by Boginni. He felt by the neighbors photo’s and his visits there was a “looming” presence over the neighbors. He felt the tower would negatively affect at least two neighbors.

Wilson responded that towers are allowed in town and that by the guideline this tower would not adversely affect or have a negative impact on the town. The applicant was willing to minimize and meet public concerns.

Sue thought the height from 170’ to 130’ was a very dramatic change for the better, she has observed in the last few months from here to Florida, to New Jersey and to Virginia all kinds of cell towers and felt this 130’ monopole does not have much impact and is very reasonable. Dan disagreed in that he felt even if it affected one property it’s not good for the town. Joan didn’t think it was the pole so much as the antennae. Wilson felt it was the Boards job to balance the interest of all citizens, property owners and applicants, not just one party. The board had tried to minimize everything and were balancing all/everyone’s interest. Tony agreed with Wilson that there are pluses and minuses to everything and you won’t make everyone happy no matter what you do.

Mike felt the Board has done what they can to reach the overall goals of the town.

Dan asked if the tower could be located elsewhere on this property? Rick replied that if put down slope then a taller pole would be needed to meet the coverage. 3.1.2 does not say the board has to limit impact to 0 but help reduce it which he felt we had done. The Boginni report did not give a definitive negative impact on surrounding properties. Dan responded that Boginni had not done a visual of the balloons so he did not look at it from surrounding properties. He did not think the board had gone far enough as far as adverse impact. 13.1.3. Sue questioned two items, future location and innovative siting. Joan asked about future? Wilson did not think it was feasible to look into the future because of such advances in this technology, the board should look at what they have now. Rick stated that White Cliff had looked at other possibilities one being the Abenaki Tower location and that was a non issue with the Association so it was not persued. Joan felt that even with this tower there would be voids and they will be back.

13.1.4 The board had received a list of other locations/alternatives and the others did not accomplish the coverage desired. Dan asked about different antennae, are these similar panel antennae’s? Yes. Color? Mr Chianis said they would be non-reflective paint, no visual impact.

13.1.5 The board felt the applicant has indicated that they would have co-location.

13.1.6 It’s to their advantage to maintain facility.

13.1.7 The board will require a bond so if the facility is abandoned it will be removed.

Vote; Motion that this application fulfills the goals of the ordinance. 5 in favor, Dan opposed. Joan opposed.

Checklist: Section 4

Sue noted that the block on page A.1 and A.2 that shows 150’ should be changed to 130’ as per waiver.

4.1.D Have not received the report from the State concerning historic sites. Mr. Chianis has talked to Emily Prouse and it will be forthcoming by July 1^st. He also presented an affidavit from the property owner concerning the replacement of stonewalls if this tower is removed.

All notations referring to 150’ need to be changed to 130’

4.3.1.5 Wilson questioned Mr. Chianis, why a monopole? Chianis replied that they felt it was the strongest, safest and self supporting. Dan felt the plainest, simplest device is less obtrusive.

4.3.3.2 Wilson felt natural vegetation was the best. Sue thought the existing tall trees along County Rd. are a more effective buffer. Have a no cut zone 30’ in (same as building setback) and 100’ along County Rd. Maybe 50’ on each side of the driveway? Mr. Chianis presented a letter from the property owner giving 100’ above the driveway (towards Prospect Hill) and 50’ below as a no cut zone.

Sheet A 2 shows the grading of the site with a slight pitch to the compound, is that correct? Yes. Wilson asked if there could be construction outside of the easement? No.

No permits needed from the State but will have to get Federal permits before it’s put in use. Chianis asked about a gate. Board thought that would be protection for them as long as Fire Dept. had access.

Sebago Technics report that goes with the mapping is stamped. The NEPA report from the State will address stonewalls etc. (5.3.2F). 5.3.3A Board needs to have a road grading and ditching plan and parking area plan. That will be forthcoming. Chianis said the code officer will get an “as built”.

5.3.3J The board requested a plan that shows the metes and bounds for the easement.

Section VIII; The board needs site review agreement as per 8.1. Bonding for removal, $20,000.00 is usually the standard amount. Joan questioned if that would be enough 5-10 years down the road? Cianadella thought it would be because it would probably only be about $8500.00 today. The Attorneys will draft a letter. And have it review able in 10 years.

Checklist is complete.

Sue made motion to grant conditional approval pending: #1 All notations of 150’ be changed to 130’. # 2 NEPO letter. # 3 Exhibit C show 130’ # 4 Plan show the no cut area 50’ below driveway and 100’ towards Prospect Hill. # 5 Metes and Bounds on easement. # 6 Security gate. #7 Site review agreement. # 8 Bond agreement. Wilson 2^nd. Vote: All in favor except Joan who was opposed.

Hearing Adjourned.

# 2 Ridgeway Continued from June 7^th. Ted sitting in.

Rick questioned items that were outstanding from the previous meeting. Stae approval are still pending. Mark DeGrace has had verbal conversation with the State concerning the approvals.

Sue started the checklist.

Mark DeGrace noted that sheet 1 and 8 through 13 would be the ones recorded so all will have proper stamps and signatures and a mylar for each. Sheet 8 through 13 show the dimension of each unit with metes and bounds. 15 through 28 show the lots.

Would like to have the cost of the monuments part of the bonding. Discussed where they need the monuments. The Nineteen Mile Brook area should have monuments at the corners. The internal Conservation Easement should have monuments. Iron rods or drill holes are satisfactory for monuments.

Abutter Wood’s easement needs a note on the plan (page 8). Tizzie Wood asked about the drainage on her property? Sue responded that she had talked to the Engineer and as of the latest plans there would be no negative impact onto her property.

Roadway remain private? Yes. Then need a note on the plan “Private”.

The Covenant documents # 17 needs to have road maintenance added.Randy Walker will get that done. Wilson asked about the slope easement on page 23 that goes into unit 10. It is unit space and should be addressed. Randy Walker responded that it would be. Rick read letter received from Town Counsel today concerning documents and he finds then fine. Walker felt they were all set. Two easements to be added to plan.

Need to have Road Agent sign off for the new location of driveway. He had signed off prior.

Plans show where the nine new trees will be planted, 6 above the roadway and 3 below towards Pier 19. Road name? “Multi”. Owners will come up with a better name. They will need street signs and that should be part of the bonding.

Walker asked how specific the road bond needed to be? Get a written estimate, then the Town’s engineer will review. The bond should include: Signs, roads, monuments, administrative cost, and drainage.

Checklist complete. Public hearing closed.

Sue felt the items needed were administrative and/or State approvals. She made motion to grant conditional approval pending # 1 Engineer seals, # 2 Monuments be set or bonded. # 3 Wood easement note. # 4”Private’ be added. # 5 Road maintenance added to document. # 6 State Subdivision approval. # 7 State Site Specific Approval. # 8 Road Agent signoff. # 9 Surety bond. # 10 Condo certification.

Wilson 2^nd. All in favor.

Hearing Adjourned

Jackie Rollins