Rick Friend, Tony Lyon, Wilson Stewart, Sue Weeks, Mike Abraham, Joan Theve and Dan Derby were present. Atty. Rob Ciandella was also present. The board scheduled a meeting with him on the 14th of June to review all that has been presented concerning White Cliff and to make sure everything is done in proper order. He will get a matrix to the board by the 7th of June so board members can get their folders in order.
White Cliff continued. Rick introduced Atty. Ciandella. Dan also noted that it is not appropriate for the board members to be approached by the public outside of these public forums concerning White Cliff or any other application before the board.
Atty. Grill, for the applicant, reported that they had not progressed as quickly as they had hoped concerning some of the reports the board had requested. They had done the index as requested but apologized that it had been left behind tonight. Copies of new photo simulations at 130’ were distributed. There are new plans (page 3) with the 130’ height. Shelters other than the one applied for have been removed from the plan. Letter presented concerning “wind drift”. Mr. Boggini has been to Tuftonboro and there is a more detailed letter presented. New coverage plots also presented.
The storm drainage waiver was presented, there would be only a small amount of disturbance.
Landscaping waiver/ Is that necessary? The board would determine if any more info is necessary.
Sue asked about the landscaping along County Rd. She felt that the natural row of trees that is along the roadway makes a better screen. Whatever mature trees are there now make a good buffer. Discussed a no cut zone. Mr Chianis asked what is the setback? 30’ but that is for building.
Mr. Maxson reported that he had received the propagation procedures from Mr. Pierre and that it was confidential information on how they plot so report is not available. Mr Maxson was very impressed with the thoroughness of the data. The balloon test photo simulation and how they accommodate the exact correction with wind.
Maxson then talked about the
coverage maps. The maps show the tower
at 130’ and because of the terrain the coverage works for RT 109 and RT 109A
the needed area of coverage. It is a good site, it provides substantial
coverage, other parts of town would not work nearly as well, there
would be shadows and not good coverage. A tower at 80’ would not have good
performance, could not know if it was “fatal” until built. At each lower level
you are shaving the odds and reducing the percentage of reliability. 130’
provides good “ bang for the buck” and fills in
some on back roads etc. Planning Board
needs to evaluate if there is a sweet spot between 80’ and 130’. The old t.v. tower on RT 171 is not the best of locations for
coverage in
Rick asked if 130’ is the best height? Maxson replied it could be done with less but not as good coverage. The objective is good coverage. Spotty service at best. A couple of towers at lower heights maybe would have the same coverage.
Dan asked if a co-locator could be lower? Yes, each carrier has a different signal, some carriers couldn’t use a lower height. The pole
is built so that carriers can be added easily.
Mr. Grill felt Nextel’s height for proper coverage is at 130’. Maxson replied that they try to cover a gap with only one tower. The performance is uncertain until it’s built unless a crane is brought in at that height.
The tower itself would be built to 128’ in order to put Nextel at 130’.
Paul McGrath commented that he thought Winners Circle Farm
and Moultonboro Neck could work together. He is a
radio operator with a 1000 watt station, would this interfere? Maxson replied that Moultonboro
Neck and
Mr Chaffee said he had talked to
Donna O’Niel in
By his figures Moultonboro airport does fall within mileage of needing a light. Why can’t power poles be used? Why can’t Nextel use the Moultonboro Neck pole?
Mr Grill talked about power poles and that they only serve a straight line and it was not feasible. He did not know of any in N.H.
Chaffee commented that he didn’t think repeaters worked for fire dept’s but would for police. He also asked who is the owner of the tower?
Maxson replied that Moultonboro airport does not apply, the tower is outside
distance based on the Jeppeson report. Utility poles
usually only cover streets/ straight lines where there is no place for a tower
mostly for traffic in a tunnel etc. The fiber to do it is very expensive and it
does not go into neighborhoods, The State forest in Andover Ma. and
White Cliff would own the tower.
Cindy Trayers asked if each 10’ increment between 130’ and 80’ could be explained? Maxson felt they did not need to be explained because the lower it goes the less coverage. She asked for the Town line to be pointed out on the coverage map. It was. Had Maxson seen their photo’s? Yes.
Mr Levengood
presented a letter that was read and filed. Some of his concerns have
previously been addressed. Norma Warner asked if access from RT 109 instead of
Mr. Chianis responded that once the tower is built there would only be someone going in there once a month or maybe only once in two months. No traffic impact.
Mr. Galvin asked if the Fire dept. had seen the plan? Yes, he has and he is fine with the plan. Galvin asked about future co-locators and the fire dept. The board is only addressing this application. If some one else wants to co-locate they will have to come back before this board.
Tony moved to close the public. Dan 2nd. All in favor.
The board will organize their files, and evaluate the proposal. Mr. Maxson will get a report to the Board by June 7th. He will not be present June 21st. White Cliff will be 1st on the agenda June 21st. The board will make their decision.
Meeting Adjourned.
Jackie Rollins
Secretary