HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-07-21 Planning Board Minutes
Draft update 3* Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
July 21, 2009
Town Hall, 120 Main Street
Top floor conference room
7:00 PM
1
2Members present: John Simons, Chairman
3 Richard Rowen
4 Timothy Seibert
5 Michael Walsh
6 Courtney LaVolpicelo
7 Michael Colantoni (new member)
8
9Staff present: Judy Tymon, Town Planner
10 Mary Ippolito, Recording Secretary
11
12Chair called the meeting to order at approximately 7:15 pm.
13
POSTPONEMENTS:
14
none
15
16
Chair called for the following DISCUSSION: .
17
Kevin Murphy, 2302 Turnpike Street
18, requested to re-execute and update covenant and
19process it thru BOS regarding rezoning related to Article 44 of 2008.
20
21Judy: this was voted at 2008 Town Meeting to rezone from R-2 to B-2 with restrictions.
22PB needs to refer this to BOS to sign. Chair; check did we agree to the 1500 sf restriction
23for drive thru? Judy that is a restriction in the covenant. Chair: didn’t see a need to ask
24PB to make a motion. Chair: check to see what PB originally agreed to.
25
26
Chair called for the following DISCUSSION:
27
Butcher Boy, 1077 Osgood Street,
28requesting an extension for Site Plan Review Special
29Permit, and Watershed Special Permit dated July 19, 2007 for construction of 60 parking
30spaces. Decisions have been recorded July 2009.
31
32Judy: Butcher Boy recorded plans, recorded Site Plan Special Permit decisions dated
332007 and Site Plan Special Permit modification dated 2008 now they want an extension
34on Site Plan Special Permits.
35
36Mr. Yameen stated a hardship because of a declining economy and lost a tenant in the
37Butcher Boy mall.
38
39Judy: PB would go by the Town Clerk’s time stamp of 2007.
40
41RR: are they not planning to do the work at all? Mr. Yameen: wants to make a decision
42whether they want to go forward with the parking lot expansion. Parking isn’t as bad as
43it was a couple of seasons ago. Vacant store was leased to Jackson Kitchen Design,
Page 1
1which doesn’t create a large call to accommodate a lot of parking spaces. Chair: prefers
2to keep parking lot the way it is and the landscaping is well maintained. Motion by RR to
nd
3grant an extension for one year for Site Plan Special Permit for parking lot expansion, 2
4by MW, vote was unanimous.
5
6
7
Chair called for the CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
8
Omnipoint Communications, Inc. – 72 Elm Street, Trinitarian Congregational
9
Church,
10Site Plan Review SP to install, operate, & maintain a stealth wireless
11communication facility consisting of up to 4 wireless telecommunication antennas
12mounted within the existing spire, radio communication equipment cabinet to be located
Mark Hutchins review submitted.
13within existing Church within R-4 zoning district.
14
15Please note: Timothy Seibert recused himself.
16
17Judy: in May ’09 Omnipoint provided Dr. Haes’ report to the Planning Department, in
18turn Judy submitted Dr. Haes’ report to Mark Hutchins RF engineer, see Mark’s study in
19PB packets tonight, included a letter from Gerry Brown, Building Inspector, stating
20applicant does not need zoning relief from ZBA based on his opinion that the installation
21is proposed within an existing structure so that the setbacks for that zoning district do
22apply.(read into the record). Judy: Omnipoint provided the following information for
23review by Machine Shop Village: a map showing existing wireless facilities within one
24mile. Applicant provided a photo of a similar installation of a church, sample window,
25provided a landscape report/statement which is on the plan to monitor vegetation;
26applicant will get a letter from Trinitarian church as to how they will maintain the church
27grounds, a statement from VHB regarding structural design which recommends that the
28antennas not be mounted to the same existing wood supporting members that are
29currently is use by MetroPCS. Mark Hutchins provided information regarding
30applicant’s claim of a gap in coverage and the alternative site analysis (see PB packets,
31also provided waivers).
32
33George T. Chianis, GTC Wireless, submitted a drawing of a key-box to the door in the
34steeple (see pages 4 of 10 of plan). PB questioned structural issues? VHB recommend
35that the antennas not be mounted to same existing wood structures.
36
37Scott Lamb, Engineer, MetroPCS is aware of structures/antennas being mounted on
38beams.
39
40Chair: Judy resolve this? Judy: VHB did not do a structural analysis in order to compare
41the applicant and MetroPCS systems, just to be on the safe side don’t put them on the
42same beam.
43
44Chair: send applicants structural analysis to VHB.
45
Page 2
1Mr. Chianis: Omnipoint’s structural engineer is specific as to what he will do (see plan
2submitted).
3
4Scott Lamb: submitted a mylar to Judy tonight. Applicant referenced the window frame
5and glass, shrubbery, hung antennas up there, sent photos as well.
6
7Judy: Signage where to put it? Will applicant provide additional signage; it’s for
8members of the public and maintenance people to know there is a hatch door shown on
9their plan. Mr. Chianis: Omnipoint is willing, these antennas will be further up the
10steeple than MetroPCS is locating theirs (make this a condition).
11
12RR: make sure signs appear in unison and not in conflict with each other.
13
14Attorney presented letters for the record tonight.
15
16MW where is GPS antenna? RF engineer pointed out GPS ban on the plan.
17
18Mark Hutchins, Brattleboro, VT, problem in coverage is from Elm St, Water St. on. Goal
19of site is to cover 495 and areas close to that. Inadequate service occurs during high
20traffic times, becomes problematic, there are 4 different sectors two of them at Calvary
21Church, one set at Stevens Estate, combination being too far away. Hard for anyone of
22these sites to pick up a signal.
23
24Each provider needs to present emergency number on their signs. Applicant needs to
25work w/Church if rebuilding of church there has to be a system when this work is done
26neighbors needs to be warned not to get in front of antennas, because FCC guidelines can
27be exceeded if this happens.
28
29RR: will church have the authority to shut down carriers? Judy: has a document of
30exposure control plan and should be provided to the church and maintenance people and
31neighbors get this page from Judy.
32
33RR: if church is responsible for the structure then they have the authority to shut down
34any carrier if necessary? Mr. Hutchins:problematic with churches…is this a permit
35needing to be renewed? Applicant should be able to go to the church to shut down
36services.
37
38Chair: called for questions from audience:
39
40Loretta Wentworth, 15 Pleasant St., the last time the church steeple was fixed workers
41hung from the steeple for over a month. Ms Wentworth read letters from residents
42regarding decreasing property values (letters for the record).
43
44Liz Fennessy, 77 Elm St., read Mr. Hutchins report, the report verifies assertions made by
45Omnipoint. In MetroPCS the figures generated were more simple in before and after
46pictures, different levels of coverage shaded in gray. Mr. Hutchins report was more black
Page 3
1and white, didn’t have enough independent analysis done in his report. Ms Fennessy has
2concerns how PB will evaluate both RF reports done by both carriers. Both carriers are
3using different levels of what their stated requirements are such as negative 88 versus
4negative 84. Mr. Hutchins report didn’t say what would happen if they built cells and
5pointed them up at buildings on Merrimack Street, you didn’t evaluate alternative sites.
6Ms Fennessy thinks a better analysis of alternative sites is warranted.
7
8Mr. Hutchins: needed to look at what the issues were in original application such as why
9can’t they use Steven’s Estate? The checks he did was to confirm area of the gap, the
10mapping was correct, would need high enough structures. Problem is tough to resolve
11because of distance, if changed out antennas at Calvary Church, or site at 495 or Stevens
12Estate you will have problem because closer coverage will suffer.
13
14Engineer, agrees with Mr. Hutchins. His team is trying to optimize area and save $200K
15on site. The other companies operate in different technologies, such as different
16frequency ranges.
17
18Ms Fennessy: issue is they didn’t demonstrate the gap in coverage? Independent analysis
19is inadequate to make a sound decision? She hasn’t seen enough evidence to feel
20satisfied.
21
22Mr. Hutchins: spoke about varying levels, FCC has not set minimum coverage levels, but
23carriers can make up whatever they want to.
24
25MW: if without this tower they would be without a significant gap in coverage? Mr.
26Hutchins: yes
27
28Thea Fournier, 247 Main St. see page 7 of report section 6B …if we were to directly
29face……what exactly does this mean? Mr. Hutchins: he spoke in general sentences.
30
31Ms Fournier: accessibility is the key…….Mr. Hutchins: they are based on thermal levels.
32Ms Fournier: what happens when someone stands 5 feet in front of these antennas? Mr.
33Hutchins: nothing will happen …..
34
35Ms Fournier: what’s happening to the bell in the church? RR: thinks this is an issue
36between church and congregation.
37
38Ms Fournier: define what significant gap in coverage means? How did Mr. Hutchins get
39actual measurement for a drive test? Mr. Hutchins: did computer test and not a drive test.
40Ms Fournier: asked PB to do a drive test and should be done by Mr. Hutchins.
41
42Engineer; significant gap comes up when customers complain they have problems in
43their area, they collect drive data, and Omnipoint did conduct a drive test and it was
44provided to Mr. Hutchins for his analysis. Ms Fournier: wants a copy of the drive test.
45
Page 4
1Ms Fournier: explain why PB are not upholding setback provision of bylaw saying
2antennas and towers need to be 600 feet………
3
4Chair: the PB in matters of zoning interpretation are mandated to go to the Building
5Inspector to get interpretation of zoning bylaw who said it’s existing structure and
6doesn’t require 600 foot setback. Ms Fournier: PB doesn’t legally need to rely on
7Building Inspectors decision. Ms Fournier: relative to that do these issues entail a
8variance request or part of a Special Permit process. Chair; it’s part of a Special Permit
9process.
10
11Ms Fennessy: where is it written that you have to uphold Mr. Brown’s determination?
12Chair: bylaw said Building Inspector is Zoning Enforcement Officer for interpretation;
13PB has to go to the Building Inspector. MW: it’s consistent with counsel, go to Zoning
14Enforce Officer to see what part of the bylaw flies.
15
16RR: inherent in the title of the Zoning Enforce Officer, by definition, it’s his job which is
17a practice.
18
19Judy: confirm w/VHB the structural analysis the applicant has provided. PB would want
20the church to be assured that they will follow recommended guidelines for maintenance
21procedures regarding exposure to workers.
22
23Scott Lamb, Engineer: the lease is executed then they get the building permit, lease kicks
24in then. MW: Provide to the PB who has responsibility….what is the process? Let PB
25know lease has a process in place or PB will put a condition that there will be a process
26put in place, who’s going to give it to them?
27
28Landlord has power over their property. OSHA issues need to be considered. PB can
29issue a condition regarding their wishes to make sure there isn’t any harm.
30
31Ms Fournier: who is responsible for injuries that happen at the church? RR: PB can’t
32answer that question.
33
34Mr. Chianis; all carries have the same policy it’s standard procedure.
35
36Judy: PB wants to hear from Machine Shop Village regarding the historic aspects of the
37application.
38
39Mary D’Angelo; 25 Martin Ave, applicant applies for the least number to get their foot in
40the door? Mr. Hutchins: MetroPCS is just getting their service building out and probably
41willing to accept a little less for coverage. Referred Ms D’Angelo to the Local Officials
42Guide, get it on the web.
43
44Chair: keep this open until the next PB meeting. Awaiting report from Machine Shop
45Village, get language from church regarding emergency maintenance. Machine Shop
46Village will vote this Thursday.
Page 5
1
2
Chair called for the following PUBLIC HEARING:
3
William Gillen, Kelsey Lane 3 lot subdivision.
4Leaving existing house on existing lot,
5two new lots and new roadway within R-2 zoning district. Phil Christenson to present.
6
7Judy: TRC meeting was held and all departments represented talked w/Mr. Christenson
8about creating two driveways instead of traditional cul-de-sac. Gene Willis, Engineer
9DPW, preferred two separate driveways rather than a cul-de-sac. If sewer is installed it
10will continue from Molly Town Road to sewer at Spring Hill Road (Mr. Gillen’s
11property).
12
13Mr. Christensen, Engineer, this project is proposed with no variances. Molly Town Road
14has not been finished yet; any work done on Mr. Gillen’s property will have to wait until
15Molly Town Road will be accepted by the Town. Addresses will be on Molly Town
16Road. Do away with the detention pond the only reason for detention pond is because of
17submittal of a cul-de-sac. If PB prefers Mr. Christenson can do away with a cul-de-sac?
18CL: yes, TS: yes, RR: do you have proper setbacks on paper? Mr. Christenson: yes, RR:
19it would be a totally compliant subdivision? Mr. Christenson: yes, RR, yes, Chair: yes,
20MW: yes, MC: yes. Mr. Christenson: will re-submit a new plan showing two driveways
21and keep the current plan showing applicant meets all the standards.
22
23
Chair called for the following PUBLIC HEARING:
24
Brooks School, 1160 Great Pond Road.
25Renovate existing natural grass on 2 soccer
26fields with synthetic turf, installation of sub base drainage system, walkways, 200
27bleacher seats and sports lighting on both fields within R-1 & R-2 zoning district.
28
29Judy: applicant is proposing synthetic turf and drainage system, bleacher seats and sports
30lighting. Lisa Eggleston, Consultant, was hired as opposed to VHB. Judy: question from
31Ms Murphy, abutter, regarding lighting and hours of operation.
32
33Chris Huntress: 1 ½ fields are within the general zone. Soccer field used for boy’s
34soccer. Field one is half in and half out and field two is entirely within general zone.
35Change in grade is plus or minus by one foot it’s a minor grade. Explained drainage
36process regarding storm water detention, this is the section that Lisa Eggleston is
37reviewing. Mr. Huntress will present his comments/review to Ms Eggleston at the next
38PB meeting. Grandstands are 100-seat (bleachers). These fields are not going to be a
39revenue generating endeavor for use of the fields, its intent is for Brooks School students.
40This will help the students get on the field early in the spring onto synthetic turf fields.
41
42RR: field turf on varsity field drains on lake, anything in there to collect this? Mr.
43Huntress: submitted a sample tonight.
44RR: there won’t be surface water filtering into the lake? Mr. Huntress: correct. Engineer
45installed outlet control structure. Mr. Huntress: see the piping which drains down, never
46an issue with water getting into abutters property. Mr. Huntress: system is proposed for
Page 6
1sports lighting, same as the one installed at the high school, reduces glare, cuts down on
2electricity and hits 00 at property line, no trees will be cut, under no conditions are fields
3to be used at 10pm and by 10:30pm light are out.
4
5John Trovage, Facilities Manager, not sure if Brooks are going to light these fields at this
6time, however, would like permitted. RR: maybe have practice 4-6pm?
7MW: any other uses other than soccer? Mr. Trovage: want to get multi-use out of these
8fields.
9
10Charlotte Murphy, 72 Campion Road, her backyard is the length of this room from the
11field on so lights are troublesome to her. There are two fields that abut residences and
12there are lower fields near Great Pond Road where there are no neighbors. Brooks has
13never had night games in the past. Brooks does presently loan their fields to other
14groups. PB should look strongly at letting Brooks lend out their property. Consider
15putting soccer field on other 10 fields.Ms Murphy had a conversation with Lisa
16Eggleston regarding drainage. Brooks created a gushing river down to the lake she
17submitted pictures to show trenches dug out leading to the pipe underground, and the
18drainage pipe (all spring long) water was gushing out of that pipe. Wants some answers
19who is supposed to be in charge of this? Turf fields in most towns in the watershed
20district have been denied because rubber pellets are made of discarded tires which
21contain lead and a variety of chemicals that go on the turf field. It’s an environmental
22issue if it runs off into plant life. 40K ground up tires would make one field. The Town
23should hire someone to check out this issue.
24
25TS do you have studies that talk about water quality levels? Ms Murphy thinks this
26should come under DEP.
27
28Chair: if this involves hiring a consultant then we should do research and a little bit of
29due diligence and look into this drainage issue.
30
31Judy: Jennifer Hayes made several site visits, entire area is a natural swale between
32Brooks and Campion Road, and there is natural drainage that follows the property line
33between the two.
34
35Mr. Huntress: PB should make a site walk and you’ll see a natural swale there, drains
36water from Campion Road and Brooks, whether it’s causing erosion is debatable. The
37other fields at Brooks are located closer to the lake. A six inch pipe is shown on the
38existing conditions plan that Mr. Huntress distributed to Ms Eggleston. Studies based in
39New Jersey was challenged by Department of Public Health that was determined by old
40technology not the new technology because lead is not released. Mr. Huntress will
41submit a copy of recycling facilities in New York from recycling of truck tires proved
42above the levels of EPA.
43
44(Time is now. 9:50 pm)
45
46TM: how high is the tree line? Mr. Huntress approximately 80 feet.
Page 7
1
2Jackie Comiskey, 64 Campion Road,.the tree line is falling down which is between
3brooks and her home, trees are falling down in her back yard due to erosion issue.
4
5Courtney: who installed dam of trees? Ms Murphy: 25 yards of grass then flumes down
6to lake in that area trees are falling.
7
8John Trovage: no attempt on Brooks part to dam anything. There is a running trail in
9that area and Brooks school tries to be a custodian of it. Pile of trees is an effort to
10collect falling trees as Mother Nature took a toll on that area.
11
12MW: put pipe in and didn’t assume they needed a permit, it was just to shed surface
13water. They are to be removed and replaced with more appropriate drainage for that area.
14
15RR: if Brooks does nothing they still have a problem. Mr. Huntress: the drainage system
16presently assigned will approve what is there now. By putting energy dissipaters it will
17spread out water in 8 foot channel to allow vegetation in that area.
18
19CL: What did you base drainage analysis on? Mr. Huntress: on surface and mechanical
20flow there now.
21
22John Trovage, there is a natural swale/culvert around that field and was constructed in
23that fashion to take that water in that direction.
24
25Planning Board do site visit a week from Saturday at 9am meet at the parking lot near the
26fields.
27
28If you don’t have games at night why do you need the lights til 10pm. Are you going to
29lease this out to other leagues?
30
31John Trovage: if Brooks is going to bear this type of expense, they would like permitting
32the lights. Brooks not looking to start a new business. There is no underlying agenda to
33make this a revenue for the school.
34
35Mr. Huntress: condition lightings being taken at property line.
36
37Ms Murphy: condition a limit on practices, late fall winter, no use by anyone other than
38Brooks School.
39
40Judy: talk to Jennifer, activity with Brooks and property owner. Copy of report from State
41of NY pass onto Lisa. Site walk by PB.
42
43
Chair called for following MINUTES OF THE MEETING:
44
June 23, 2009 “Minutes”
45
nd
46Motion by MW that the “Minutes” be accepted as written, 2 TS, vote was unanimous.
Page 8
nd
Motion to adjourn by RR, 2 by TS, vote was unanimous, meeting adjourned at
1
approximately 10:30 pm.
2
3
4
th
Everyone is available for August 4 Planning Board meeting.
5
6
7
8
9
10
By order of the Planning Board
11
12
___________________________
13
APPROVED
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Please note: The Planning Board reserves the right to take items out of order and to discuss/or vote on items that are not listed on the
36
agenda.
Page 9