Meeting convened at
Board accepted the corrected minutes of
#1. WHITE CLIFF COMMUNICATIONS Site
Plan Review Public Hearing continued from
George Chianis submitted additional documents:
Appraisal report;
Photo simulations of proposed tower;
Letter from Ocean National Bank re: financial capabilities of WCC;
Statement re: no tree cutting in fall zone;
Copy EBI Consulting letter to Granite State News regarding revised notice for proposed cell tower with corrected height of 170 ft.;
Map of State of
New set of plans with scale bars corrected.
WCC is re-locating the driveway entrance onto County Road 80 ft. down slope – away from McGrath’s driveway as requested. This will require a re-application to the state for SHIPPO and NEPA. The driveway is proposed to have a 12 ft. wide surface within a 20 ft. wide easement.
SFC Engineering of
Electric lines serving the cell tower can be above ground or below ground.
WCC no longer plans to install any lights outside – neither on the door or on site; there will be interior switchable lights.
Nextel and WCC do not require a generator on site, so there are presently no plans for one. If Public Safety or another carrier requires one, then WCC will come back to the Planning Board. Without a generator, there is no fuel on site and no spillage concerns.
There is no known requirement for lights on the tower. Tricia Lambert of NH Aeronautical Commission
has been contacted. Airports at Moultonboro,
Flying H (Hansen) and
WCC will talk with Chief Thompson regarding fire equipment access and turnaround.
Plan scales have been corrected.
Arbor vitae has been shown around perimeter of fall zone.
WCC has spoken with Road Agent Steve Hunter regarding use of
Rick Friend read aloud letters from
Godden (opposed),
McGrath (2 letters – driveway location concerns & wish to have tower camouflaged),
Wiley (opposed – real estate values will be affected),
Whelchel (limit height, concerns with balloon notice), and
Chehames (questions about greatest public good, what happens when tower has to come down).
Randy Parker spoke regarding real estate values stating that anything unpleasant to look at affects the value of property; the psychological effect also plays into the abililty to re-sell; affects the numbers of interested buyers, the length of time to sell, etc. The percent of impact depends on the buyer. The real estate report submitted by WCC states there is no impact on assessed values. Atty. Quarles (sp?) of Devine Millimet for WCC stated that the appraisal report reflects fair market value generally and specifically and that the tower will have no impact on property values based on their case studies.
Atty. Sousa for Nextel and Jesse Villenueva spoke regarding the gaps in coverage for Nextel service. They do not have data for gaps in coverage of other carriers. They are applying for a license for their own coverage. Each carrier has their own technology so cannot use each other’s equipment. There needs to be ten feet vertical separation between equipment of carrier to the next. They presented new coverage maps. Nextel’s major goal is to get Route 109 fully covered since it is the primary highway in the vicinity.
WCC was asked how they would know other carriers would want to co-locate here for their gaps in coverage. Equipment cannot transmit through trees; the higher the pole, the better the propagation. Typically when a tower is built, it is filled – partially because of the difficulty of getting a tower approved. Nextel needs 150 ft. height for their gap coverage. WCC proposes to build a 150 ft. tower now and add up to the 170 ft. height as needed.
Don Haes, the radio frequency expert, stated that a cell tower signal would not interfere with radio reception. Specific frequencies are assigned to carriers, the same as they are assigned to radio stations. Carriers, radio stations, satellites, etc. cannot broadcast outside their assigned frequency.
There was a discussion of the advantage/disadvantage to the town for a tower 150 ft. or 170 ft. The ordinance is written to encourage less rather than more towers; the higher the tower, the more co-location is possible, therefore, fewer towers are needed.
Judy Godden believes visual pollution of the tower will reduce property values.
Dick Brody wants to see propagation studies that were done for lower levels.
Dave Sykes with experience at Green Mountain Communications says that the base of the tower will be a huge excavation with a hole 6 to 8 feet deep for a square concrete mat of 20 to 25 ft. square 2 to 4 feet thick with piers up from there. Can sometimes be pinned to ledge, other times ledge has to be blasted. WCC has not done geologic probing yet.
Dave Eaton, 1 Prospect Hill: property values will be lowered.
Anne Marie Tranfa – opposed to cell tower; it will be visible from Rte 109 and will have an effect on property values.
Ken Cookson,
Ken Leavitt, for Seth and Ivy Leavitt-Carlson –
1.
Property at
2. Are there other sites that are perhaps better?
3. Could a house be built within fall zone? Answer – there is to be no deforestation within the fall zone, so difficult to build a house without cutting trees.
4. Stealth tower would be more appropriate.
David Wiley – submitted photos of towers with info about towers. He was a state real estate appraiser for about 13 years and is now an appraiser for a private firm for past 6 years.
Larry Levergood,
John Galvin – submitted photos of balloon from church parking lot.
1. Doesn’t want to see a cell tower from his house; doesn’t want to know there is one nearby.
2. Stated that he has technical questions but didn’t elaborate.
3. Construction is potentially overwhelming. Possibly 18 feet deep with 25 ft. by 25 ft. surface. Code officer will likely need professional assistance.
Norma Warner, 2 Prospect Hill, very much opposed. Doesn’t seem to belong on this hill.
Fenton Varney – Did WCC study shorter towers? Perhaps 1 in Moultonboro and 1 in Tuftonboro to provide the coverage.
Cynthia Trayers –
1. Increased percentage of coverage from 60% to 70% of Tuftonboro does not have a quantified value. Per Jesse Villenueva, overlap in coverage is required to prevent dropped calls so the increase is more than just filling in the white areas on the map.
2. What will the noise level be? Answer: HVAC units will be installed on buildings WCC will provide decibel ratings.
3. Alarms? No.
4. Lightning effect? Answer: Full ground bridge system will be installed; everything will be grounded.
5. Photos submitted with cell tower superimposed.
6. Will affect property values.
7. Sample letter submitted is misleading.
Mr. Chaffee- submitted 2 letters concerning White
Cliff application in
Planning Board scheduled a workshop session for April 5 to review information submitted. Public hearing continued to April 19, first on the agenda.
Wilson asked for additional information – site details,
construction details, propagating waves at different levels, waiver request
required for more than 20 ft. height above trees. Suggested the Board get a consultant to
review technical info. WCC agreed to
fund consultant for up to 10 hours.
Board wants consultant. Rick
Friend will make some calls to locate a consultant. WCC would like some input regarding
consultant chosen – to verify that the person is a qualified.
MOUNTAIN SHADOWS Public
hearing continued from
**Board noted that the specific wetlands certification from the zoning ordinance 12.3.2 needs to be added.
Mike Abraham reviewed the traffic study done by Steve
Pernaw, PE. The projected peak traffic
flow from these added lots would be 20 trips per hour. Board does not see this as a problem for the
neighborhood or for
Tony reviewed the drainage report. There will be no significant increase in water flow off site. Plans provide for mitigation. Soil conditions are such that most water is absorbed on site. Slopes along the road sides require 6” of bark mulch since grass is difficult to grow on site.
**Need to submit test pit and percolation test data.
Plans and profiles were submitted. There are no drainage structures proposed other than driveway culverting.
** Will show as built utility locations for this section when complete. It was noted that he still needs to provide as builts for previous sections of Mountain Shadows.
**Needs to post performance guarantees. Plans to post $45,000 cash to cover cost of buying surface gravel and paying for labor. Would ask for $30,000 to be released after roadwork is complete with the remaining $15,000 reserved for the utility work and as builts. Installation of road name signs is part of the construction requirement.
** Need to have a written cost estimate from engineer and written performance agreement.
Board approved road names:
Monuments have been set. Covenants for all of Mountain Shadows are already in place. With conditional approval, Fenton can file for certification with Attorney General’s office.
Town will hire H E Bergeron to monitor construction standards when the time comes.
Proper wetland certification
Soils tests data
As built utility locations (or bonding for them)
Cost estimates & performance guarantee.
MELVIN MARINA Site Plan Review application and public hearing. Tom and Matt Young presenting with Brian Berlind of LandTech. Abutters present were Mary Hunter and Farmer Realty Trust. Sue Weeks noted that she has been working with the Youngs with regard to their donation of the barn to the Historical Society. The Board did not consider that to be a conflict of interest for this application.
The proposal is to remove the existing buildings from the premises and construct a 56’ x 76’ showroom for retail sales and office space consumer services facility. The building will mimic the Greek Revival architecture typical of barns in the area. The entire facility will be located in the Neighborhood Business Zone. There will be some outside display of new boats in front of the proposed building along the side of the driveway.
Lighting is proposed on the outside of the building above each of the two entrances and on the entrance sign. All lighting will be downlight and will not shine on neighboring properties. Interior lights will be utilized after hours. There will be infrared cameras for security and they require some light.
Waiver request was submitted for stone surface parking area rather than paved. (6.1.F)
Waiver request was submitted for showing abutting wells and
sewage disposal systems. (5.3.2.H)
The existing structures on the lot affect the water flowing off the lot. The Youngs plan to tear down the house and have donated the barn to the Historical Society for removal onto the Historical Society property. This work needs to be done while the ground is still frozen. The Board agreed that water flow calculations will be based on the conditions with the buildings on site.
A letter from Jan Broadfoot was read by Mary Hunter. The Broadfoots are opposed to this application due to the size and age of their place and being bordered on two sides by this proposed business which would create noise, traffic, light and safety issues.
It was noted that the zoning ordinance restricts outdoor sales. Planning Board felt that proposed use is as stated and is permitted in the Neighborhood Business zone.
Mary Hunter raised several concerns.
1. The Young boundary plan by Land Tech does not correspond to the deed description. Deeds in the chain of title and a survey by Stephen Boomer show an angle in the line between the Young’s lot and Mary’s lot at the rear near where it intersects with the MariSue Terrace right of way. LandTech does not believe there is a title issue or a boundary issue; believes the intent was for a straight line.
2. Clarify whether boats are motor vehicles. Matt Young recited portions of RSA 259:60 and 259:125: the State classifies boats as water craft, not motor vehicles. Board agreed.
3. There is a small mezzanine in the building so the square footage is bigger than just the 4,256 sq. ft. indicated by the 56’ by 76’ footprint. The Youngs stated that with the mezzanine, the square footage was still under 5,000 sq. ft.
4. Suggested a traffic study might be in order to determine the impact of the traffic caused by moving boats on and off the property.
5. Should the Youngs be working with NH Highway Department on a better drainage plan for the frontage along Rte. 109; Mary’s cellar has been flooded by runoff coming from rte 109 and not by the river itself despite the fact that the cellar abuts the riverbed. 6. Suggests the Planning Board restrict outdoor winter storage of boats. The Youngs stated that they do not do any outdoor winter storage and would not utilize this property for that purpose. Mary suggested the restriction would be for future owners.
7. Suggested restricting the number of boats that can be displayed outdoors to a reasonable number. Comments were made that perhaps an area for outdoor display could be designated.
8. Not opposed to the concept; the barn design is aesthetically pleasing, but we need to make sure the conditions are clear for future owners/users.
Bob ____ of Farmer Realty Trust – Why is there such a large overhead door? Matt: for access by tractor to move motors in and out. There is no repair work to be done in the building.
The detention pond limits the use of the back yard for thru traffic (also for outdoor boat storage). The Youngs may store their own inventory on the lot in the winter but none of their clients’ boats. Melvin Marina provides indoor storage only.
Public Hearing was continued to April 19th, 2nd
on the agenda. Site walk is scheduled
for Tues. Apr. 10 at
Application accepted as complete for jurisdiction.
**Rick requested a master plan of the camp showing the location of the abutters – perhaps tax map pages taped together and highlighted – a format that allows Board to check that the all abutters have been notified.
**Need zone info, tax map and deed references for owner of property shown on plans.
**Need to show name and address of map preparer.
Conditional approval was granted pending the above asterisked items.
RIDGEVIEW ESTATES Formal Application Submission and Public Hearing
Mark DeGrace from Holden Engineering and Chris _________, principal of CJ Winny made presentation. Abutter Fran Laase and a representative for Beth Merrill were present.
Application was accepted as complete for jurisdiction.
The proposal is for 28 condominium units, some single detached and some in
multi-family buildings. On-site wells
and septic systems will support the units.
All units will be sprinklered.
Road is proposed to have 20 feet wide travel surface with curbs. A through road to Greymont’s Farm Pond subdivision
is shown in the location specified by the Greymont design. The “T” intersection of the subdivision road
and the through road is designed to serve as a turnaround in lieu of a
cul-de-sac. The road is to be
private. The entrance at
State subdivision and site specific approvals are pending.
Wetland application is in the works. By letter, abutter Elizabeth Wood noted concerns about the wet area and road as it abuts her driveway. CJ Winny and Wood have a draft agreement they are working on to address this.
Some documents were submitted but not the full Declaration of Condominium. Applicant believes that has been sent to Atty. Sullivan. Sue will contact Atty. Sullivan and if he has Declaration, will get it to Atty. Murray for review.
New plans have been sent to H E Bergeron. Bergeron’s concerns from Dec. 2006 have been addressed.
Conservation easement document has been submitted to the
Conservation Commission.
Tony will review the drainage report.
Fran Laase suggested the existing stonewall opening at
Public hearing continued to April 19, 3rd on agenda.
Meeting adjourned at
Susan H. Weeks,
Acting Secretary