HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-11-20 Planning Board Minutes DRAFT
REV. 12/4/07 tAortTH
CF�TIen r,,;
a 0
2 0
4I�p�
40RwrlO
6 �SSACHUS
7 TOWN OF NORTH ANDOVER
8 PLANNING BOARD
9 Minutes of the Meeting
10 November 20, 2007
11 Town Hall, 120 Main Street
12 7:00 PM
13
14 Members present: John Simons, acting Chairman
15 Alberto Angles, Clerk
16 Richard Rowen,regular member
17 Tim Seibert, alternate member
18
19 Members absent: Richard Rowen, Chairman
20 Jennifer Kusek,regular member
21
22 Staff present: Lincoln Daley, Town Planner
23 Mary Ippolito,Recording Secretary
24
25
`6 John Simons, acting Chairman opened the meeting at approximately 7:10 PM and announced that the
27 Watershed Special Permit petition for Danielle&David Dellovo, of 5 Village Way will be postponed this
28 evening.
29
30 POSTPONEMENT:
31
32 Danielle & David Dellovo, 5 Village Way, Map 104C, Parcel 111. Request for a Watershed Special
33 Permit to construct garage, house additions, deck and pool R-1 Zoning District. Received VHB review
34 10131107. PB to address staff review/comments.
35
36 Chair called for the following discussion item:
37 DISCUSSION:
38
39 1. Summons by Stacey Hughes-Birch to the Town of North Andover Planning Board. Appeal of the
40 October 16, 2007 decision of the PB to endorse a plan of land titled"Plan.of Land prepared for the
41 Estate of Barbra Tighe".
42 Lincoln stated that Town Counsel has advised that he will defend the Planning Board relative to this
43 Summons. Ms Birch is appealing the ANR application and plan that was endorsed by the Planning
44 Board. Chair didn't want to go into the merits of the case tonight but it is good to know that Town
45 Counsel is standing behind the Planning Board in this case. There was further discussion regarding
46 the legality of this case, as to whether Ms Birch's appeal was a per se appeal or an unconscious
47 decision or otherwise a violation of her civil rights. Richard Rowen stated that he wants his name
48 removed from this lawsuit. Richard did not participate in any of the meetings relative to this
49 particular petition, as he was absent for both meetings.
50
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
November 20,2007
Page 1
DRAFT
REV. 12/4/07
1
2
3 CONTINUED HEARING-
4
5 2. None
6
7
8 Chair called for the following public hearings:
9
10 PUBLIC HEARING:
11
12 3. Town Meeting Warrant Article—Amend Zoning Bylaw Section 89 Wireless Service Facilities.
13 RR would like to modify the language in the article tonight in order to not leave it open ended
14 from a Warrant Article point of view. If the PB compiles with the Town Bylaw then there is a
15 violation with the Federal law. The PB as citizens of the Town should not be put in a position and
16 involved in a law suit for the sake of a few and if the real issue is the way the Federal law was
17 written then the people proposing this warrant article fight the Federal law (instead of trying to
18 modify the Town Bylaw).
19
20 Mr. Tryder stated that the moratorium is a temporary freeze on taking any action on any further
21 activity until the May 2008 Town Meeting this covers Special Permits for wireless facilities within
22 the Town of North Andover. The Town will decide one way or another to vote for the
23 recommendation of the Wireless Bylaw Committee. TS took objection to the wording in the
24 Warrant article,which contradicts what Mr. Tryder just said. PB concerns are there are a couple of
25 scenarios that could stand in effect after the Town Meeting. If the Town Meeting in May does not
26 amend any wording to the bylaw it reads as if the moratorium would then continue?
17
28 Mr. Tryder said no,that's not the intent. The intent is to have the moratorium last until the 2008
29 Town Meeting. TS reiterated regardless of the intent of the moratorium the day after the Town
30 Meeting the moratorium is over?Mr. Tryder agreed. He asked when does something that was
31 voted on at Town Meeting actually go into effect? PB stated it could take months, as the Attorney
32 General has to go forward with the approval of same. Chair advised Mr. Tryder to send a copy of
33 the revised warrant article to Joyce or Lincoln prior to the Town Meeting so that the change will
34 be incorporated into the handout at Town Meeting. However, discussion took place on how to
35 move the Article at the time of the Town Meting.
36
37 Comments by AA, what is the purpose of the Article? Mr. Tryder stated that it's to prevent any
38 other actions from taking place between now and the annual Town Meeting so that nothing can be
39 grandfathered in or brought in before the Cell Tower Committee has a chance to make their
40 recommendations.
41
42 Chair stated if application had original approval and their renewal period is as of February, so
43 what does this mean in terms of not being able to get any renewals? Mr. Tryder stated they
44 continue to operate as they have there would be no change in service, no discontinuation, no
45 decline in service. Please note further discussion ensued regarding this issue but the only action to
46 come out of it was to advise Mr.Tryder to reword his Warrant Article, which he agreed to do.
47
48 Thea Fournier spoke in favor of a short-term moratorium.
49 She has no ill will toward telecommunications or the cell tower industry.
50 FCC has not challenged moratoriums.
1 Moratorium does not discriminate between wireless providers.
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
November 20,2007
Page 2
DRAFT
REV. 12/4/07
1 Members of this moratorium will benefit from this short-term moratorium in order to review land
2 use and regulatory issues regarding wireless industry.
3 Reviewed moratoriums in various surrounding towns and Boards have been supportive.
4
5 Chair asked if Lincoln had some of the material regarding Special Permits or moratoriums from
6 the surrounding towns?
7
8 Lincoln stated that he's reviewed the Special Permit for Concord,Lincoln,Wayland, and he's
9 found that North Andover is the only Town to grant a wireless SP for time constraints of 3 years.
10 Dimensional setback requirements for North Andover are different from other surrounding Towns
11 and there appears to be no justification to demonstrate the particular dimensional setback.
12
13 Chair asked for a summary of what our Town Counsel said. In essence Town Counsel feels that a
14 moratorium is not a correct mechanism to examine the issue of wireless bylaws. If a moratorium
15 is in place then the wireless company can challenge the Town and take the Town to court and cost
16 the Town in excess of$10,000.00 to defend. Lincoln read a letter from Town Counsel dated Oct.
17 24, 2007 regarding moratorium for the record.
18
19 Further discussion ensued between Ms.Fournier,Mr. Tryder and the PB; however,no other action
20 was taken on this subject.
21
22 Motion by RR, 2°0 by AA to recommend unfavorable action on Mr. Tryder's moratorium article,
23 vote was unanimous 4-0. RR stated we have an existing Bylaw if the moratorium goes thru if the
24 citizens of the Town want the PB to uphold the Bylaw without violating Federal Law then if an
25 application came thru for a renewal then according to the moratorium the PB would have to deny
26 it and theoretically PB would have to shut down service etc. This would just be continuing a bad
27 situation and it's not terribly affective. The number of applications that will come up between
28 now and May is irrelevant(probably closer to one than one hundred applications).The moratorium
29 has the effect of stopping all applications if they were to come, therefore denying the companies
30 the right to conduct their business. This Town has a bylaw in place where as other Towns do not
31 have their bylaw in place. This would put the Town in the position to defend a lawsuit.
32
33 TS stated the reason he's not in favor of this article is it's inconsequential and he doesn't like the
34 idea of calling Special Town Meetings to pass moratoriums or bylaws that are fairly
35 inconsequential. If PB was dealing with developers of wireless facilities lining up on the Town's
36 pipeline to get on PB agenda then he would agree with this article,however,but that's not really
37 what's going on between now and the end of May. Doesn't want to send two different signals
38 because when we've told the wireless companies to come in and get the SP renewal taken care of,
39 if the moratorium goes thru then when we actually can't talk to you because of a moratorium.
40 Instead of grabbing the proposed new tower applicant,this is actually going to backfire with the
41 small applicant for a small renewal issue.
42
43 AA stated that the moratorium is pretty much indefensible. Town's Bylaw is flawed but flaws are
44 the fact that it's more restrictive than it can be under the Federal Laws,relative to setbacks,
45 reporting requirements, and permit renewals. So if we're going to address something we should
46 address the Zoning Bylaw not just put a stop to it,by putting the Town in a position where it will
47 get sued.
48
49 Chair echoed all the comments from the PB. PB has a fair amount of empathy for what the
50 Moratorium is proposing to accomplish but doing a moratorium really doesn't work in the PB
1 environment because the Town has had a long standing Bylaw. JS wouldn't criticize the Bylaw's
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
November 20,2007
Page 3
DRAFT
REV. 1214107
1 flaws because it sounds negative. Actually in many respects the weaknesses in the existing Bylaw
2 is that it's too restrictive particularly with the renewal provision. JS doesn't see anything that
3 makes our Bylaw all that bad and a moratorium will cause problems with litigation and won't
4 achieve anything positive.
5
6 Lincoln stated that the Wireless Cell Tower Committee is making progress in re-writing the Bylaw
7 in being consistent and being enforceable looking at setback issues,filing requirements, etc. and
8 looking at other Town's requirements. There is one new application that's in the queue that was
9 put off because of the renewal process but that's adding onto the existing antennas on existing
10 wireless facility. He doesn't foresee any kind of applications for new construction of new towers
11 coming in front of the PB.
12
13 Chair called for a repeat of a motion to vote for unfavorable action by the PB relative to a
14 temporary moratorium, all in favor of the motion: AA yes,RR, yes,TS,yes,JS,yes,unanimous
15 vote 4-0. Chair stated that although PB appreciates the effort put forth by Mr.Tryder,but per the
16 advice from Town Counsel this wouldn't be the right thing to do right now, we want to continue
17 the dialogue.
18
19 Lincoln asked if the PB still wanted him to work with the Cell Tower Committee? JS stated yes,
20 because the Town doesn't want to end up with something that they can't work with.
21
22
23 Chair called for the following Public Hearings
24
25 4. Tom Zahoruiko, Tara Leigh Development LLC,Map 62,Parcel 139. Watershed Special
26 Permit, Common Driveway,Access Other Than Legal Frontage to constructs Lot 1 &Lot 2 to
2-7 develop said lots for two single family dwellings within R-1 Zoning District.
28 Tom Zahoruiko stated that this application was filed in 2003 for a request for SP for Watershed,
29 Common Driveway, and Access Other Than Legal Frontage on two lots on Bradford Street. The
30 plans and applications are identical to what you saw back in 2003.These SP were granted and
31 recorded and even got extensions,however,they were not exercised and let expired. Mr.
32 Zahoruiko would like to request that the same SP be granted by the PB tonight.
33
34 Lincoln stated that Mr. Zahoruiko is asking for a waiver from VHB review because nothing has
35 changed relative to this initial project and these new applications are identical to the applications
36 filed in 2003. An ANR plan has been filed with the Registry of Deeds to subdivide the parcels into
37 2 parcels.
38
39 Mr. Zahoruiko stated that there was a question as to weather the driveway should be paved? There
40 is a slope there and it's in the Watershed even though there has been an impervious area, and Mr.
41 Zahoruiko feels it should be paved. JS asked if those two lots were wooded? Mr. Zahoruiko
42 stated they are wooded along the street and as you go up the slope they get progressively more
43 open,actually very nice open meadow lots. Mr. Zahoruiko pointed out where Carter Hill was
44 located next to the parcels.
45
46 RR asked for clarification of parcel#139 and if it is the same parcel? Each lot is 3.8 acres and 3.6
47 acres. RR stated that rather than waiver the drainage calculations, submit the drainage
48 calculations. If the wetlands were flagged and they are in the same place then they satisfy the
49 requirements and don't need to be waived. Wetlands are located on the street and at upper left
50 corner and are isolated. The proposed houses are sited further away from the wetlands.
J1
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
November 20,2007
Page 4
DRAFT
REV. 12/4/07
1 Mr. Zahoruiko stated that because this is two lots then he would like the Watershed Special Permits to be
2 independent of each other, as two families are going to live here in separate homes it might make sense to
3 create two separate decisions.
4
5 RR stated he could apply for the extra Watershed Special Permit.
6
7 JS stated that if each of the people were coming in independently the applicant would have to get a
8 separate Watershed Special Permit for their lot,which is technically the correct way to do it. SP runs
9 with the land and specific piece of land. If you have one SP that cuts across two pieces of land each
10 permit deals with the construction on the individual lot.
11
12 Mr.Zahoruiko asked is it critical that the application submitted be a separate application? PB stated no,
13 however,check with Town Counsel on this.
14
15 AA stated he remembered deliberating over the common driveway and there was a reason. Is there any
16 wetland replication on this project?
17
18 Mr.Zahoruiko stated no,he's not crossing any wetland.
19
20 AA where does the driveway lie in the Watershed? It's outside of the 75' buffer.
21
22 Mr. Zahomiko stated in the 2003 application he reduced the impervious surface because there was a
23 terrible slope located there.
24
25 RR asked if you have an 850' long impervious drive surface is all the water draining off the side of
26 driveway or curbing it and capturing it in catch basins? What's in your design to ensure that an 850' long
27 run that you're not going to end up creating gullies and washout?
28
29 Mr. Zahoruiko stated putting in a proper installation should be the answer. He's trying to avoid
30 constructing a roadway in the associated infrastructure because of the impact and cost.
31
32 Lincoln handed VHB's review of 2003 to the PB and advised that these comments were addressed in that
33 review.
34
35 Lincoln will make copies of the 2003 information and give them to the PB for their perusal.
36
37 JS wants to keep this open until the next PB meeting in order to give the PB time to research any issues.
38
39
40 Chair called for the following Public Hearing;
41
42 5. Frederick McCarthy,357 Dale Street,Map 64,Parcel 24. Watershed Special Permit to raze
43 existing dwelling and replace with new dwelling attached to existing garage within the R-1 Zoning
44 District. .
45 Per request of the applicant the PB agreed to waive the VHB review as long as Gene Willis,DPW
46 will review the project. Verification from Mr. Willis that he has reviewed the application and found no
47 major issues regarding the storm water management on the site.
48
49 Lincoln reviewed the full application and recommends we close the public hearing upon further
50 information from Conservation Commission. The plan has been revised to allow for additional
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
November 20,2007
Page 5
DRAFT
REV. 1214107
1 buffering on the South side of the property and he has a few additional questions regarding the
..2 existing paved driveway and the pool itself.
3
4 Ben Osgood,Jr.presented a plan and stated that Mr.McCarthy has lived at 357 Dale Street for many
5 years. A few years ago Mr.McCarthy was granted a permit to add a garage to the existing property.
6 Mr.McCarthy was proposing to stay in his existing residence,however, after putting some money
7 into the property into a very old home with an old stone foundation it has become obvious that it
8 would take too much money to fix up the existing house. Mr.McCarthy proposes to build a new
9 house just behind where his existing house is located and then raze the old house. The existing house
10 has a circular driveway located at the front of the house and there is an additional driveway that goes
11 around the side and back of the house.Because he will raze the existing house and do the construction
12 of the new dwelling he will have a reduction in impervious area.At the Con/Com hearing the issue of
13 taking out the side/rear driveway came up. Mr.McCarthy stated that when an applicant takes out
14 pavement it costs money to haul it away. Con/Com thought the pavement could be broken up instead,
15 recycle it on site and use it to fill a hole. Mr.McCarthy thought that was a good option. Mr. Osgood
16 added a note to the plan stating that the removal of the driveway would be at the owner's discretion.
17 The existing pool is old and Mr.McCarthy did plan on keeping it there, could this be part of the
18 wording in the decision? By constructing the proposed residence closer to the front of the street it
19 will place it further away from the Watershed area.Will use the existing septic system. Applicant is
20 proposing to live in the existing house while constructing the new residence. Lot was created in
21 1948. Size of new residence will be a smaller footprint than the existing residence.
22
23 Lincoln asked did Con/Com approve the buffer area regarding type and number of trees? That's an
24 issue w/Con/Com now. Applicant to submit a revised plan for review. Keep this open until Dec. 4't'
25 PB meeting.
?6
27
28 DECISION DRAFTED:
29
30 6. Sprint Spectrum L.P.300 Chestnut Street—Special Permit for operation of existing wireless
31 communication facility.
32
33 Chair stated that because the hearing has been closed the PB couldn't take any further testimony this
34 evening. Attorney James Hoyt was present representing Sprint this evening.
35
36 Mr. Tryder was present and stated that at the 723 Osgood Street cell tower hearing he was allowed to
37 speak on the subject after the meeting had been closed. Chair asked if Mr. Tryder wanted a copy of
38 the drafted decision, and Mr. Tryder stated he had one.
39
40 AA read a letter from Town Counsel regarding Wireless Service facility at 300 Chestnut Street dated
41 November 19,2007 for the record. In essence complaint raised was annual frequency compliance
42 evaluation. The case was settled and carrier reserved its right to challenge any enforcement of the
43 annual certification and validity of Section 8.9 of zoning bylaw requiring such annual reporting
44 requirements. See copy of letter attached.
45
46 Chair stated that these are reasonable performance standards and the PB puts them in lots of decision
47 for lots of reasons the PB is not dictating what the standards should be just asking them to
48 demonstrate what they have to comply with.
49
50 AA stated that in the same attachment from Attorney Urbelis regarding Paragraph 115: "Nor are
1 preempted local regulations saved by the claim that the local government is attempting to"assure
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
November 20,2007
Page 6
DRAFT
REV. 12/4/07
1 itself that a carrier is complying with FCC standards"where the regulation is"effectively regulating
2 federally licensed operation"as opposed to"traditional zoning regulation of the physical facility."
3
4 RR stated that the applicant has to meet the FCC regulations and demonstrate to the PB that they are,
5 therefore,leave the draft decision as it is.
6
7 AA agreed,leave the draft decision as it is.
8
9 AA stated that the PB did have follow up conversations w/Town Counsel requesting information as to
10 the validity of the PB hearing the renewal before the PB. Section 8.9 of N.A. Zoning Bylaw relating to
11 an application for renewal of a SP prior to the expiration date or the original SP. The Board is granting
12 this permit to comply with Federal Communications Act of 1996 which mandates the local
13 governments may not take actions that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of
14 personal wireless services. AA stated that if the PB didn't hear this renewal case or the renewal that is
15 before the PB for whatever reason then the PB would be prohibiting the Telecommunications Act.
16
17 RR stated the carrier is requesting the PB to issue a SP and PB has to address it.
18
19 Chair asked the PB if they had any further edits to the decision. PB stated no.
20
21 Motion by RR to approve a SP for 300 Chestnut Street, for SBA Tower, Sprint Spectrum LP under 8.3
22 and 10.3 of the North Andover Zoning Bylaw which is a Renewal of the SP for the operation of an
23 existing wireless communication facility within the R-3 Zoning District, 2nd by TS,vote was
24 unanimous 4-0.
25
26 Mr. Tryder, 386 Chestnut St., commented that he understands that the PB already voted and it can't be
27 changed he pointed out a number of flaws in the decision:
28 Do you have the address of the owner of the property in the application?He stated the owner is listed
29 incorrectly, and PB has voted on a SP that has an incorrect owner listed.
30 Decision also involves excusing the fines that are stated in the bylaw,as being due which would come
31 to 3/ of a million dollars that were discussed in previous Planning meetings that this was voted
32 in closed session not in public session and is in violation of the public meeting laws to vote on such a
33 thing outside of public session. It does not meet the requirements for behind closed doors decisions.
34
35 Chair asked what decision is that?
36
37 Mr.Tiyder stated the decision that not to proceed to collect or attempt to collect the fines.
38
39 Chair stated that's not a decision that the PB makes that's a decision that the Building Inspector
40 makes.
41
42 Mr.Tryder said excuse me but Mr.Nardella stated very clearly in one of the hearings that this was
43 decided in Executive Session by the PB with Town Counsel. Put this on the record. The other thing
44 of note in the application is that the property boundaries are pictured but when you go to the site there
45 are absolutely no markers what so ever to indicate where the property lines are in reference to the
46 abutters. How can you take measurements when you don't even know how far away from the property
47 lot they are?
48
49 The RFR testing that was submitted was done on August 2nd at that time Cingular/AT&T had placed
50 their equipment on this tower and to his knowledge and he tried asking Lincoln for it and he's in the
'51 process of trying to get the information. If the AT&T equipment was turned on at the time they did the
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
November 20,2007
Page 7
DRAFT
REV. 12/4/07
1 RFR readings because the Bylaw requires that you have to take a reading of the cumulative radiation
2 coming off of there and the cumulative acoustic noise. If there is equipment on there and it wasn't
3 turned on who's responsible for doing the RF readings. So Mr.Tryder would say that those readings
4 are invalid that they presented.
5
6 In terms of findings of fact in number 2 the uses developed will not affect the neighborhood as
7 indicated by the submittal of reports (this is the company's view that it won't)Mr. Tryder stated he has
8 proof that it will decrease his property values. How can you say that it does not adversely affect the
9 neighborhood?
10 The plan meets the requirements of the wireless service facility Bylaw Section 8.9. Mr. Tryder
11 stated it does not meet the requirements, does not meet the setback requirements,nor the noise
12 requirements,. The statement that if we were not to renew this permit(if this were not a renewal)
13 we're talking about issuing a permit. He's said many times at meetings this hearing should have
14 taken place at the ZBA that's the procedure that when something does not meet the Bylaw
15 requirements it goes to the ZBA. That in essence is not prohibiting them from doing business that is
16 going thru proper Town procedure. So to day this is a renewal when it's 4 years expired doesn't
17 hold any water it's invalid. He can't go with that argument.
18
19 In the letter it says finally the PB finds that the project is in harmony with the general purpose and
20 intent of the North Andover Bylaw and generally complies with the requirements of the Bylaw.
21 That's ridiculous. It does not comply with any of the requirements of the Bylaw. Under terms of
22 special permits the SP may be renewed under the same criteria as the original SP provided that the
23 application for the SP is made prior to the expiration date of the original SP. It's 4 years overdue.
24 Prior to the final release of security no equipment or other that will emanate noise-exceeding levels
25 sited herein shall be placed on the exterior of the structure. We already know that it exceeds the
26 noise requirements. The SP shall be deemed to have lapsed the years from the date permit granted
27 which it far exceeded that. Then it goes on to list waivers.
28
29 Mr.Tryder is concerned about the validity and on the basis of which you have written this letter on
30 which you are going to be willing to defend it in Court because we are going to appeal this decision.
31 There are so many things wrong with this and how it is handled. It's curious that a written decision
32 was written before any discussion of how you were going to vote was taken. You did that for the
33 moratorium,you discussed it very appropriately what your opinions are everybody spoke and tonight
34 you have a letter presented to you there was no previous discussion of that at the last meeting.
35
36 RR stated the PB would not discuss how they would vote in advance. There was an open public
37 hearing on this matter.
38
39 Mr.Tryder stated you didn't discuss how you felt about it like you did tonight when you discussed
40 the moratorium. Each one of you went around and said what you thought and what you would do.
41 That did not happen for this issue at all.
42
43 TS stated the floor was open for PB to do so.
44
45 Mr. Tryder stated at the last meeting?
46
47 TS stated no here tonight. The letter is already written.
48
49 Chair stated the practice is that based on the spirit of discussion and the feedback in the discussion
50 we tell the Planner to draft a decision. We hold off on our final voting until the night of the meeting.
S 1 If this vote had gone 3 to 1 it would have failed and we would have had to rewrite the decision.
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
November 20,2007
Page 8
DRAFT
REV. 1214107
1
2 Mr. Tryder asked how could you draft a decision letter when you haven't made a decision formally,
3 when you haven't voted?
4
5 Chair stated that what he is trying to tell Mr.Tryder is that the practice of the PB is based on the
6 discussion at all the meetings and feedback and the direction that BP gives the Planner prior to the
7 night of the vote. You heard us say(at two prior discussion) exactly the same thing as based on the
8 discussion that Town Planner can draft a decision that's what the PB did and that's what we did in
9 this case and that's our normal practice.
10
11 Mr.Tryder stated,"ok"as you know he's very disappointed in how things have been handled and
12 we'll pursue this.
13
14 Chair stated we understand and in the spirit of good faith we welcome the input and feedback and he
15 hopes we can have civil disagreements and move forward.
16
17 Mr.Tryder stated that when it's basic things like you don't even know who owns the land that's
18 absurd. It's just too basic to overlook.
19
20 RR stated to Mr.Tryder you expressed your opinion publicly and the PB by not addressing each
21 point in its turn doesn't mean that the PB agrees with Mr. Tryder's point of view.
22
23 Thea Fournier spoke and stated that in 2003 she disagreed with the"Town Father's"because they
24 did not support the Bylaw and it was written for the residents for their health, safety, and welfare.
25 She was willing to take her stand and in this Town to support the residents in this community to
26 uphold the Bylaw. She did win and thinks that its really important for people in office that take an
27 oath to remember when they are working thru these issues to be really well read or call in other
28 counsel that is in the field of telecommunications and the"Act"to know what is and what is not
29 allowable. In other issues our Town is doing wonderful things but in the field of
30 telecommunications and FCC regulations and everything that is going on in the industry we're
31 falling really short and it's getting our Town into trouble. She hopes that in the future that the people
32 in office will take a little more time to think about their decisions because it ends up costing money
33 even more Town's money to fight decisions that are not really legal.
34
35 Chair stated that in this case if you do appeal the decision that what the PB does is stand behind the
36 carrier and the carrier incurs the expense not the Town.
37
38 Ms Fournier stated that she imagines that will happen but she did beat Omnipoint.
39
40 Mr. Tryder stated it's very good to know that you do stand behind the carrier and that's been evident
41 in all the hearings we had over the last 3 years because you are more afraid of the carriers legal
42 recourse than you are of the citizens and it's unfortunate and embarrassing that in this Town you
43 would rather stand behind the carrier than stand behind your own laws in this Town that are
44 approved by the Attorney General. In conjunction with the Telecommunications Act our Bylaw as it
45 stands right now is perfectly legal there is nothing in there that is a violation of the
46 Telecommunications Act.
47
48 Chair thanked Mr. Tryder.
49
50 PB agreed that there is no need for them to meet prior to the Special Town Meeting.
51
Planning Board
Minutes of the Meeting
November 20,2007
Page 9
DRAFT
REV. 1214107
1 APPROVAL OF THE"MINUTES".
2
3 7. Minutes for the following Planning Board Public Meetings:
4 November 6, 2007
5 Lincoln stated that the PB should wait until the next PB meeting to take a vote on the"Minutes",the PB
6 agreed to do so.
7
8 UPCOMING PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS:
9 8. December 4, 2007
10 December 14, 2007
11
12
13
14 Motion by RR to adjourn the PB meeting 2dby TS,vote was unanimous meeting adjourned.
15
16
17 By order of the Planning Board
18
19 Approved
20
Planning Board
Minutes ofthe Meeting
November 20,2007
Page 10